Blegging re human ability to taste the change in ocean acidity
Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far.
My question - can we taste the difference? Might be an interesting factoid that we've altered the oceans so much that we can taste the difference, so imagine the effect on creatures whose biochemistry is dependent on that system.
I can't find the answer - anyone care to enlighten me? Please comment.
Reading around about acid manipulation in wine-making suggests this level of pH change is detectable to taste, but I'm not certain, and that's also starting at a very different level of acidity.
Posts
642 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 642 Newer› Newest»the resulting pH when a strong base neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7"
so nothing to fear!!
after all we know that the seas will never go below a ph of 7.
the resulting pH when a strong base neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7"
so nothing to fear!!
after all we know that the seas will never go below a ph of 7.
the resulting pH when a strong base neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7"
so nothing to fear!!
after all we know that the seas will never go below a ph of 7.
oops didn't mean to do that!!
Anon-101a here:
"this might help you"
Help us what? The one having problems here is you, ducky.
Maybe this will help you:
The correct normal term is ocean acidification, and it will be a massive problem for marine life.
If you have something about that above, then post it, otherwise all you're doing is googling for words and copying links for papers that have nothing to do with this thread.
In other words, stop trying to shift to a "LOOK! SQUIRRELS!" to hide the fact you're absolutely clueless by your own efforts to misunderstand.
Anon-101a here:
This might help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom
A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. Atomic hydrogen constitutes about 75% of the elemental (baryonic) mass of the universe
here is some middle school chemistry to help you understand less base
http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/lessonplans/chapter6/lesson9
Anon-101a here:
"the resulting pH when a strong base neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7"
so nothing to fear!!"
The former does not mean the latter.
I wonder how many of the logical fallacies you've engaged in, dicky.
Anon-101a here:
Here is some primary school chemistry to help you understand more acid: adding acid to something makes it more acid.
I understand more base.
You don't understand acid.
really not that hard, as we know the seas will never go below a ph of 7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
In chemistry, pH (/piː eɪtʃ/ or /piː heɪtʃ/) is a measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline. Pure water has a pH very close to 7.
Anon-101a here:
"really not that hard, as we know the seas will never go below a ph of 7."
No, we don't know that.
You keep asserting it, but you're wrong.
Anon-101a here:
Of course, you'll assert two different and contradictory statements with absolutely no compunction:
1) "a ph of 2.5 as seen on the floor of the oceans where there is teeming live [sic] of fish mussels, crabs etc,"
2) "the seas will never go below a ph of 7."
so now you know,
so what have we learnt today,
coral was first laid down at a co2 level of near 5000ppm when the temps were at the highest in the last 500 million years. All extinctions happened at a co2 level below when coral was first laid down,
the seas have teeming life at a ph of between 2.5 - 8.5
we know that pollution( oh and starfish and an atomic bomb ) has been the biggest destroyer of coral,
and blow me down, the seas away from coastal regions and ocean floor vents will never ever become acidic below a ph of 7 .
Anon-101 a:
"so what have we learnt today"
The "royal we", I take it?
"coral was first laid down at a co2 level of near 5000ppm"
Well, you haven't learnt anything about evolution or how a species alive today doesn't have to be the species alive a million years ago.
I guess evolution is against your religion, though.
"when the temps were at the highest in the last 500 million years"
You've not learnt to keep to responsive issues, either.
"All extinctions happened at a co2 level below when coral was first laid down,"
Nobody knows where you learnt that from. Not even you.
"the seas have teeming life at a ph of between 2.5 - 8.5"
You haven't learnt, that, though, since you still claim the seas cannot drop below pH=7.
"we know that pollution( oh and starfish and an atomic bomb ) has been the biggest destroyer of coral"
No, you don't know that, you just assume it.
"the seas away from coastal regions and ocean floor vents will never ever become acidic below a ph of 7"
You haven't learnt not to refute your own claims in the same post, either.
why someone wanted to send me a paper about extinctions where i can investigate and find out that coral was first laid down when temps were at their highest in 500 million years, that the co2 levels were at 5000 ppm , i can only hazard a guess, but i assume that like me they feel that an increase in co2 will not be a problem.
"Well, you haven't learnt anything about evolution or how a species alive today doesn't have to be the species alive a million years ago"
so who was the idiot who sent the paper about the past then, are they really stupid!!!
Anon-101a here:
"why someone wanted to send me a paper about extinctions where i can investigate"
Yeah, since you don't wish to investigate, it was a bit strange to offer it to you.
Your consequent refusal to think on it at all beyond the level required to confirm your preconceptions is pretty clear, dicky.
Anon-101a here:
"so who was the idiot who sent the paper about the past then"
No, just misled into thinking that you would actually listen to a damn thing.
They, unlike you, have a positive outlook on human capacity to think. You prefer not to.
Anon-101a here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral#Evolutionary_history
Although corals first appeared in the Cambrian period,[25] some 542 million years ago, fossils are extremely rare until the Ordovician period, 100 million years later, when rugose and tabulate corals became widespread.
Tabulate corals occur in limestones and calcareous shales of the Ordovician and Silurian periods, and often form low cushions or branching masses alongside rugose corals. Their numbers began to decline during the middle of the Silurian period, and they became extinct at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago. The skeletons of tabulate corals are composed of a form of calcium carbonate known as calcite.
Rugose corals became dominant by the middle of the Silurian period, and became extinct early in the Triassic period. The rugose corals existed in solitary and colonial forms, and were also composed of calcite.
The scleractinian corals filled the niche vacated by the extinct rugose and tabulate species. Their fossils may be found in small numbers in rocks from the Triassic period, and became common in the Jurassic and later periods. Scleractinian skeletons are composed of a form of calcium carbonate known as aragonite.[26] Although they are geologically younger than the tabulate and rugose corals, their aragonitic skeleton is less readily preserved, and their fossil record is less complete.
so now why are you sending me info about the past,
you said the past was different with different species .
Ordovician period, 100 million years later, when rugose and tabulate corals became widespread.
I know this , the co2 levels was nearly 5000ppm, and the temps were about the highest they have been in 500 million years,
Anon-101a here:
Yes, that's why I'm sending you information about the past: they are different species.
I realise that you wish that this weren't the case, but I'm afraid facts are things that are true whether you believe in them or not.
Pretending ignorance is no counter.
Anon-101a here:
"I know this "
What you refuse to acknowledge is that there were different species of coral. Which died out when the seas changed.
And refuse to see that when the seas change this time, corals will die out again.
but the paper illustrating extinctions was pointless as the co2 levels and temps were lower than in the Ordovician period,
the paper was using the past as an example of what we face in the future!!
Anon-101a here:
"but the paper illustrating extinctions was pointless"
For you, perhaps, because it makes a mockery of your claims.
This is not my problem, however, it's yours.
the paper was using the past as an example of what we face in the future!!
each time of an extinction the previous co2 levels were higher so you cannot say that the high levels of co2 was the cause,
so in the Ordovician period the co2 levels were near 5000 ppm and very slowly declining as were the temps over millions of years and then at the late end of the Ordovician came the first extinction , so the paper focuses on these extinctions as cuased by an increase of co2, this does not make sense.
but the paper does not say or give an example of what the co2 levels or ph of the seas actually were,
so we are left to take at face value the claim that co2 was the cause,
I had to look at other papers to find out what the temps and co2 levels were!!
i found that paper inept!!!
Anon-101a here:
"the paper was using the past as an example of what we face in the future!!"
Was it?
"each time of an extinction the previous co2 levels were higher so you cannot say that the high levels of co2 was the cause"
Yes you can.
"then at the late end of the Ordovician came the first extinction"
Yup. The first one.
What about the second and third and later ones?
Or are you claiming that the subsequent CO2 levels were above 5000ppm after the Ordovician?
Anon-101a:
"i found that paper inept!!! "
Which one? Remember: you're inept, so such findings are sort of built-in with you.
this one, which i ahev jsut had a look through again,
http://se-server.ethz.ch/staff/af/Fi159/V/Ve053.pdf
it covers both bases and says
both an increase and decrease in co2 has been blamed on extinction,
but really at a starting point of 5000 ppm when coral was laid down and a decreasing amount of co2 it all feels really dodgy , I am not sure what the point of the paper was,
actually looking at the decrease of co2 over the billions of years it would be better say that a decrease in co2 caused the extinctions.
sorry hundreds of millions of years,
Anon-101a here:
"it covers both bases and says... "
...Nothing about what you've been complaining about people here saying.
"it all feels really dodgy"
Git feeling science? Yeah, try thinking with your head for a change.
"it would be better say that a decrease in co2 caused the extinctions."
No, it would be supremely dumb to do so.
This, however, appears no impediment to you, so feel free, dumbass.
but in your own words the species were different then than now so the paper and what it was trying to prove is irrelevant .
so we cannot hold up that an increase or decrease in co2 is dangerous as it uses both terms.
or shall we compare to today and say that an increase or decrease of co2 could be problematic.
Anon-101a
"but in your own words the species were different then than now so the paper and what it was trying to prove is irrelevant"
To someone who understands the species were different, being told they are different is irrelevant.
YOU, however, do not wish to believe this to be the case (since it is ruinous to your pathological needs).
Anon-101a here:
"or shall we compare to today"
Well, you were the one bringing up 500million years ago.
"and say that an increase or decrease of co2 could be problematic."
Yes.
was that a yes to
"and say that an increase or decrease of co2 could be problematic."
Kevin said:
"I haven't quoted anyone that does research only in a lab"
richard said...
"Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints
on geological dilemmas"
Umm, that paper was written by John Veron. Do you know his background? Are you seriously claiming he has only worked in laboratories and never been out in the field?
You are ignorant. Do some basic research and background checks before making such stupid statements.
You can continue this discussion by first admitting that your made-up accusation that Veron has only worked in a lab as totally spurious and WRONG. Laughably wrong. I repeat, you are a disgrace to whatever university gave you a degree.
"this might help you"
Oh, the irony...
I was going to ask you last night if all solutions were neutral at pH 7, but you've stumbled across the answer yourself in the interim. The tragedy is that you do understand the significance of it...
FFS Dick, do you know what's in seawater? Strong acids/weak acids? Strong bases/weak bases? In what ratios? And what about its equivalence points? Have you figured out yet where they lie? Do you know within what range seawater can be acidic in action, whether such is defined in Arrhenius, Lowry-Brønsted, or Lewis acid terms?
Can you explain, with reference to all of the points in the preceding paragraph and to those inherent in my as yet unanswered questions, why the increase in a solution's concentration of an acid species is not acidification?
Note: a real answer requires comprehension. This is not the same as random GCP, devoid of context or synthesis.
And seriously, why do you so desperately avoid answering my questions?
" richard said... (three times, such was his joy)
the resulting pH when a strong base neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7"
so nothing to fear!!
after all we know that the seas will never go below a ph of 7."
I don't think he noticed that the first line actually scuttles his entire thesis, even though he has yet to address the issue of equivalence points...
He couldn't be more blatant if he pasted a big "I have no clue" sign on his forehead and pranced naked on Youtube.
On paleocorals.
1) They are collectively more calcite-based than the younger, aragonite-based species (including the modern scleractinian reef-building species), although the morphological conversion of the former to the latter carbonate polymorph might obscure the analyses a little.
2) At least some groups of paleocorals are regarded by taxonomists as not being at all closely related to modern corals.
These two facts alone render Dick's arguments completely flaccid.
Continuing, but on the biochemophysics:
3) Aragonite is harder than calcite, which is probably one reason why modern calcifers evolved to use it, and it's easier to extract from seawater at the current pH. Lower the pH, however, and it soon becomes more difficult to keep out of solution.
4) The issue is not whether pH will decrease below 7, it's about what happens between 8.2 and various points down to the mid-7 region. Particularly, it's about what happens to the aragonite saturation state.
Facile Dick has yet to address the nature of seawater acidity, equivalence, the effect of acidity on carbonate equilibria, or the very fundamental point that neutrality has in almost all real-world situations, almost nothing to do with a hydronium ion concentration of 10^-7 M.
The guy's just a troll, and a particular stupid one - and a painfully illiterate one too, what with his Chinglish ham-fisting of the term 'base'.
It's times such as this that I almost wish that the Professor would put the troll out of our misery.
the mother of all explosions,
the 15-megatonne Bravo test on 1 March 1954, at Bikini Atoll, was a thousand times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
it vaporized 3 islands ,
several decades on the coral is doing quite well.
“Coral flourishing at Bikini Atoll nuclear test site – because humans have been driven away”
oh and seas will never become acidic as in a ph below 7.
Bernard
even the corals off the coast of italy with a ph between 7.3 - 8.2 are doing ok.
there again this is based on real life research !!
Kevin
Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints
on geological dilemmas"
Umm, that paper was written by John Veron. Do you know his background? Are you seriously claiming he has only worked in laboratories and never been out in the field?
I look forward to reading one of his papers on research in the field regarding - well anything.
please forward on.
Kevin
but actually was the purpose of bring up that paper,
he never mentioned the levels of co2 or ph levels of the seas, not even estimates!!
an utterly meaningless paper.
so here we are , co2 increasing, alarmism increasing on this site,
and the reality _
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/12/13/3911244.htm
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority scientists say baby corals are blooming on the Great Barrier Reef.
12
GBRMPA and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service have carried out their second inspection of a series of reefs between Townsville and Tully, in the wake of cyclone Yasi.
GBRMPA's Climate Change and Ecosystems Manager Roger Beeden has been heading up the survey and says that the coral bloomings are a positive sign of recovery
John Vernon
"Although ocean acidification
events are not well constrained in the geological record, recent studies show that they are
clearly linked to extinction events including four of the five greatest crises in the history of
coral reefs"
really John, you forgot to mention that the co2 levels were higher before each extinction and you forgot to actually mention, yourself, what the co2 levels were or a possible ph of the waters,
Guess we just have to take your word for it John!!
thanks again, though John , next time mention that before the first extinction the coral was laid down at a co2 level of nearing 5000 ppm and by the time of the first extinction the co2 levels had fallen.
Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: An Emerging Big Picture
John E. N. Veron
"Although the seawater carbonate system has been known
for a long time, the understanding of acidification impacts on marine biota is in its infancy"
but John go go on to say that the seas are doomed
if the seas ph changes.
John Vernon
"Most publications about ocean acidification are less than a decade old and over half are
about coral reefs. Contributions from physiological studies, particularly of coral
calcification, have covered such a wide spectrum of variables that no cohesive picture of
the mechanisms involved has yet emerged"
well John every one here on this thread thinks marine life is doomed and there is a cohesive picture.
well apart from me, John , as i know you are basing your alarmism on some extinctions millions of years ago, when the coral was laid down at a co2 level of 5000ppm
John Vernon,
This point is well
illustrated by coral reefs: temperature-induced mass bleaching is dramatically destructive and
well-known, whereas acidification impacts are almost entirely predictions which have no visible
component.
bleaching from temps up and down John don't forget that!!! and also from pollution but you might have missed that new field research John.
yes predictions are good for the acolytes,
john vernon,
"Mass bleaching has seriously affected one-third of reefs worldwide,:
yes john it has but it now shown to be pollution and when you take the pollution away the coral rapidly recovers.
well John. an interesting paper full of predictions.
some intersting facts about coral that lives in a ph of 7.7 and you mentioned the coral of the coast of Italy but forgot to mention that it lives between a ph of 7.3- 8.1.
We will follow your predictions carefully,
the MET predicted a dry winter,
richard - His name is John Veron. Are you still standing by your ridiculous statement that he's only done laboratory work? Or are you willing to admit that was an insanely stupid remark?
By the way, you can quote-mine all you like, but you forget we can read - unlike your usual compadres. In fact, from one of the very abstracts you so willingly quote, the next sentences read:
Although ocean acidification events are not well constrained in the geological record, recent studies show that they are clearly linked to extinction events including four of the five greatest crises in the history of coral reefs. However, as ocean acidification is now occurring faster than at any know time in the past, future predictions based on past events are in unchartered waters. Pooled evidence to date indicates that ocean acidification will be severely affecting reefs by mid century and will have reduced them to ecologically collapsed carbonate platforms by the century’s end. This review concludes that most impacts will be synergistic and that the primary outcome will be a progressive reduction of species diversity correlated with habitat loss and widespread extinctions in most metazoan phyla.
Now tell me moron, one of the pre-eminent researchers in the world has reviewed all the relevant literature and reached this conclusion. You, a know-nothing idiot with a pat-on-the-back patent from a totally unrelated subject disagree. Hmmmm...... who should I believe? Someone who knows just a teensy little bit about the subject, or idiot boy with computer?
You know what they call this - denial of the science. Hell, you can't even consistently spell his name right, much less understand what's been written.
so to sum up,
one again he uses the past to illustrate a problem for the future.
So facts from the past,
1. CO was laid down at a co2 level of 5000ppm
2, Each extinction he mentions was preceded by a huge length of time where the co2 was higher.
3 John though never mentions himself what the Co2 levels or the the ph of the seas were in either of the papers , before, during or after the extinctions.
I look forward to more predictions from John.
Kevin O'Neill
Get real!!!!
Kevin., he is basing his predictions on past events when he does not even mention the co2 levels or the pf of the seas,
each event/ extinction was preceded by co2 levels that were higher for millions of years.
Vernon , verniun , who cares it is shoddy work based on predictions,.
For our friend richard, who hasn't a clue about John Veron's status in the field (from 1996 AMSA Silver Jubilee Awardee):
I came to work on corals because of two fortunate events. The first was that Terry Done (a colleague at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) who also works on corals) started a scuba club at our small rural university, and we found corals where none had been recorded before - at the Solitary Islands off the New South Wales coast, not far north of Sydney. The second was that my PhD turned out to be on an experimental subject where results came thick and fast. I gave a synopsis of my thesis at an International Congress of Entomology in Canberra in 1972 and won a prize, was offered three overseas post-docs (how times have changed), and was advised by the editor of the Journal of Insect Physiology to send him my work for publication immediately; otherwise my results would be "stolen". I accepted the prize and did as the Editor bid me do, but I turned down the post-docs. Turning down opportunities of a lifetime - in fact three of them - was not something that students did, even in those days. The harsh words of once-supportive colleagues were still ringing in my ears when I left my old university to take up a post-doc at James Cook University in Townsville (which is about central to the Great Barrier Reef) to work on corals. James Cook University had advertised three times for someone to work on corals who had a PhD and was a scuba diver. I was their only applicant (times have certainly changed) and last hope. I knew next to nothing about corals.
This article is not a biography; I reflect on my own experiences in order to make some points that I think are of general interest. I had dumped an apparently promising career in insect physiology, at that time a field about as big as all the rest of zoology combined, for "a scuba diving holiday", as my professor described it. What actually happened was that I had listened to myself, and that self knew that I was not an experimentalist who would enjoy a regimented workplace.
What coral research does one do on thousands of kilometres of reef when one knows next to nothing about corals? My plan was to do on reefs what botanists do in forests: describe the communities, work out where they occur, and what the dominant species are - that sort of thing. Enter the word "species", the word that became central to virtually all my future work. Although James Cook University had a reasonably good reference library for coral taxonomy, I could seldom confidently apply the names I found in these imposing volumes to what could be seen underwater. (And as it turned out, it was many years before I realised the nature, and extent of, the gap between museum-specimen-based coral taxonomy and the realities of the reef.) The essential issue was that as soon as I swam from one environment to another, the species appeared to change, at least a little. I had some knowledge of species in dragonflies, where a minor change in wing venation delineated a different species, or so conventional wisdom then decreed. If such notions were applied to corals, the logical conclusion would be that there are many thousands of species of corals on the Great Barrier Reef, each growing in one specific type of environment, such as a lagoon edge or an outer reef slope. Nevertheless, the species (if that was the word) that occurred together on the same patch of reef usually appeared more or less distinct. This, and other similar observations, suggested that there was some sort of order, or natural reality, behind the apparent chaos of coral variability as seen underwater.
Yeah, too bad Dr Veron never did any field work. LOL
Hey, hey moron boy - still waiting for your admission that you know *nothing* - though it's not absolutely necessary, we already know it *without* your self-acknowledgement :)
Please Kevin,
"Although ocean acidification events are not well constrained in the geological record, recent studies show that they are clearly linked to extinction events including four of the five greatest crises in the history of coral reefs".
Kevin, haiving read his papers let me know what the co2 levels were or the ph of the seas were before , during and after each extinction.
we actually know what the co2 levels were before , during and after each event, john does not bother to mention that for good reason, the co2 levels were higher for millions of years prior to each extinction!!!
Kevin,
Some field work
he didn't even mention that the coral loss is now known to be from pollution.
this guy is an idiot.
no mention of mass destruction from use of cyanide,
or used for building,
just some alarmism based on the past - really dodgy, and now used to make predictions,
what field work!!!
there again he wrote the paper in 2011 so he would nor have been able to read this one from 2012.
Coral resilience to ocean acidification and global warming through pH up-regulation
John Vernon does not mention any of this and it is a catalogue of disaster.
http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/persga/pilcher.html
In fact areas where man does not visit the coral thrive.
richard - if you are unable to even admit you were insanely wrong about Dr Veron's field work - what point is there discussing *anything* with you?
You made an asinine statement, you were called out on it, you were given proof that it *was* asinine, but you can't admit your foolishness.
I will repeat this every so often until you *do* admit it - just so no one forgets the type of person we're dealing with. Do you even recognize how stupid you are? One of the most famous coral scientists in history - and a man who made his bones out diving and studying reefs - and you claim he never worked in the field .... your stupidity is beyond description - and I'm usually pretty good at describing denier stupidity.
Kevin.
if he has done field work good for him but his papers stink and are out of date, do not give facts, co2 or ph levesl from the past , do not make sense based on co2 levels that are known for the past which he does not mention ........
Kevin i would rather you do not argue his case, its rotten to the core,.
he makes absolutely no case about the extreme pollution effecting coral,
if he did his home work he could acknowledge that the areas man does not visit the coral is healthy , thriving and in pristine condition.
What is his problem, this needs addressing now.
I guess you like his work on predictions for the future based on his facts from the past with no mention of actual amounts of co2 or level of ph of the seas- very scientific.
richard - when did you fall in love with models? I thought you were only interested in field work? You do realize that McCulloch et al is a theoretical model - right? Under 'METHODS' we find: The effect of internal pH regulation on the rate of coral calcification is modelled using an empirical exponential rate dependence law for carbonate precipitation...
Well, unlike you *I've* actually read the paper (and not just the abstract). And, unlike you, I believe good science is good science and both laboratory and field work are necessary - and not just when it serves me to quote-mine (unlike some others who shall go nameless {richard}).
And again your smoking gun isn't what you think it is. Short version: *IF* they can adapt to the temperature changes then *SOME* corals might survive the pH changes. Or, as the authors conclude:
We caution, however, that our IpHRAC approach specifically addresses only the effect of rising temperature on aragonite precipitation kinetics. The inherent ability of different coral species and their symbionts to thermally thus remains to be the critical unknown parameter that limits quantitative predictions on the future of coral reefs. We also emphasize that calcifying organisms with minimal or no ability to regulate their pH will suffer substantial decreases in skeletal growth rates as pCO2 continues to increase and seawater pH decreases. This is supported by observations that some calcitic foraminifera have already suffered severe declines since the LGM, consistent with the rapid decline of non-regulating species predicted by our model for abiotic calcification (Fig. 3b,c). Although our results indicate that up-regulation of pH at the site of calcification provides corals with enhanced resilience to the effects of ocean acidification, the overall health of coral reef systems is still largely dependent on the compounding effects of increasing thermal stress from global warming and local environmental impacts, such as terrestrial runoff, pollution and overfishing.
richard, you really should *read* these papers before citing them. All you do is prove your ignorance time and time again. And your hypocrisy - models good, wait, wait, models bad ... wait wait ... models good .... wait wait .... models bad.... nevermind....
as you know i read them and dissect them, I had read the models paragraph but as you see I really don't care about printing them one way or the other
so it works both ways , you believe in models so you will believe the paper.
do i believe the model based paper- nope don't believe anything based on models or done in the lab , but i do know that you do.
What i believe is that the coral will survive naturally and will adapt.
in fact in one of the greatest destructions, a bomb at Bikini atoll.
an explosion 1,000 times the power of hiroshima which vaporized three islands has decades later resulted in coral that is growing and in pristine condition as man does not visit the area.
Richard.
You appear to have not noticed that I have left a trail of questions and comments for you.
It's a pity that they have escaped your notice because they would help to educate you about the manifold scientific misapprehensions that afflict you, from your faulty understanding of acidity to your ignorance of the phylogeny and calcium metabolism of paleocorals.
As to your gross misunderstanding of the reason for modern coral die-off events, you might want to go back to square one. Hint - look up the nature of the relationship of corals with their symbiotic zooxanthellæ.
You're really not a very informed individual are you? At least, not very well informed on matters of actual fact - you have pseudoscience nailed...
"The Bravo bomb vapourised three islands, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees, shook islands 200 kilometers away and left a crater 2km wide and 73m deep"
and today the coral is thriving and in pristine condition,
and gentleman with that I shall leave you.
It"s been fun.
sorry should say .
It has been fun , not It's
Bye, Richard. Please take your meds.
Bernard J, as my go-to biochemist guy, what is it with these people?
Do they really think that that if they torture language sufficiently that lawyer-speak will alter the nature of reality?
Or are they so conditioned to being fucked in the ass by denier pseudo-science that they're worried it'll start hurting if they stop?
It's a mystery. A comic mystery, but a mystery nonetheless.
had to flit back,
Bernard J, as my go-to biochemist guy,
ah yes help me understand Bernard,
John Veron talks about extinctions and co2 and ph of the seas from the past,could you interpret his papers for me and let me know what his precise values were regarding the levels of co2 and the ph of the seas.
As without these precise levels how can we compare them to today as he does.
Or do you agree in the end it is just a prediction, as he says in his paper.
or would you agree that the extinctions happened at a lower level of co2 than millions of years previously ,
sometimes thousands of ppm lower than millions of years previously when coral was first laid down,
Chek.
I dunno what the issue is, although there are a few well-recognised alternatives.
I'm puzzled* though that Facile Dick felt compelled to leave before addressing the many points and questions put to him. After all, if he is correct he should have been able to respond and put to bed the issues raised therein, and demonstrate why the rest of the participants on this thread are wrong and he is correct. Assuming that this is the case of course...
And if he'd stayed perhaps he could address the matter of what relevance to long-term coral survival a pulse event like a nuclear explosion has, compared to the issue of a press event like ocean acidification which has a completely different ætiology. Straw man, much?
[*OK, so I'm not really puzzled. Dick's brave exit is completely understandable...]
"John Veron talks about extinctions and co2 and ph of the seas from the past,could you interpret his papers for me and let me know what his precise values were regarding the levels of co2 and the ph of the seas."
What's up Dick?
Can't you "interpret" the papers yourself? More importantly, can't you understand that paleocoral phylogeny and calcium biochemistry have profound differences compared to the modern context?
And why do you so vigorously avoid answering pertinent questions?
"ah yes help me understand Bernard,"
I dunno if you've noticed, but your singular failure to engage with questions upthread seriously damages your pretence of "expertise".
Not in your eyes of course, but there you go. Unable to realise you're on a hiding to nothing. Please continue - it's not as if anyone's convinced in the slightest.
richard says: "What i believe is that the coral will survive naturally and will adapt."
Here in a nutshell - in what might seem an innocuous statement - is the triumph of ideology over reason.
Science tells us that 99.9% of all the species to ever inhabit the earth are now extinct. The paleological record and recent observations tell us that many corals cannot survive outside of narrow thermal or pH boundary conditions. Yet richard optimistically (naively, unscientifically) believes they will adapt and survive.
A betting man would look at the evidence and conclude that even *without* any human interference most species go extinct. And of course the human contribution to their enviroment is detrimental, not beneficial.
999 out of every 1000 species that ever lived were unable to adapt and survive, but that apparently just goes right over poor richard's head. Ideology trumps reason and I'd bet he doesn't even have the slightest clue that he's become a denialist zombie.
Anon-101a here:
"as you know i read them and dissect them"
And as we know, your grammar not good.
We also know you haven't dissected them, you've just been told what to think about them.
Meanwhile you prattle on about a paper that was dissected and shown terribly wrong, but then wibbled on about how it was an "alternate view".
Well, yes, "wrong" is an alternative to "right", so *technically* correct. Which is all you feel you need to do, isn't it?
Anon-101a here:
"What i believe is that the coral will survive naturally and will adapt."
Thereby proving
a) Dicky's points are all entirely based on a hope and a prayer
b) Dicky thinks that's all that's needed
c) Dicky doesn't understand that the corals we used to have all died out and have never survived since, and never will again.
Anon-101a here:
"I'm puzzled* though that Facile Dick"
You missed an opportunity to use the word "Flaccid" here...
a) Dicky's points are all entirely based on a hope and a prayer
1a John Vernons points are all predicitons
b) Dicky thinks that's all that's needed
2b John vernon thinks thats all that is needed
c) Dicky doesn't understand that the corals we used to have all died out and have never survived since, and never will again.
3c John vernon thinks that the past mirrors the future but does not realize that each extinction and loss of coral was millions of years after the co2 levels had been higher .
Anon-101a here:
"or would you agree that the extinctions happened at a lower level of co2 than millions of years previously"
Would you agree that the extinctions millions of years ago were of different species than today.
Anon-101a here:
"the MET predicted a dry winter"
Nope, I work there.
It was considered more likely to be wetter than normal (but not by as much) and much more likely to be much windier.
Because of the collapse of the Arctic Sea Ice, the weather was much less predictable, and the predictions were not very reliable, and that unreliability prediction turned out 100% correct.
Also, will you agree that a prediction failed has nothing to do with this thread, but was brought up as a stick to wave around as some sort of Excalibur against science?
The Met Office’s forecasts were under fire last night after it was revealed it told councils in November to expect ‘drier than usual’ conditions this winter.
Anon-101a here:
Re: Dicky: "You made an asinine statement, you were called out on it, you were given proof that it *was* asinine, but you can't admit your foolishness."
Quoted, as the internet says it, for truth.
Hence the "LOOK! SQUIRRELS!!!" slam at the Met Office, who does science that his religion hates.
Would you agree that the extinctions millions of years ago were of different species than today.
then what was the point of john vernon comparing the past to today when coral was living in co2 levels up to 10x that of today
really disturbing,
you say you work for the MET
you do not know what the MET predicted and now you believe on predictions from John Vernon
"You missed an opportunity to use the word "Flaccid" here... "
Actually, it did appear once (Cntrl-F) but I thought that less would be more...
;-)
Dick.
Can I take it that the fact that the door's bounced on your arse means that you're sticking around to answer the questions put to you multpile times?
some more models for you.
"[1] Coral reefs are constructed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Deposition of CaCO3 (calcification) by corals and other reef organisms is controlled by the saturation state of CaCO3 in seawater (Ω) and sea surface temperature (SST). Previous studies have neglected the effects of ocean warming in predicting future coral reef calcification rates. In this study we take into account both these effects by combining empirical relationships between coral calcification rate and Ω and SST with output from a climate model to predict changes in coral reef calcification rates. Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future"
Can I take it that the fact that the door's bounced on your arse means that you're sticking around to answer the questions put to you multpile times?
have you more predictions from John Vernon based on the past when coral was laid down in co2 levels nearing 5000ppm,
I look forward to reading any other papers you have from John Vernon, please forward , I bet he has written loads.
you may like this one as well.
"The supposedly already-degraded state of coral reef ecosystems is sometimes claimed to be a reason why anthropogenic global warming will have a major impact on the reefs, i.e. they are already close to extinction and can easily be tipped over the edge. Recently published work by Pandolfi et al. (2003) in Science has outlined a method for measuring the decline of coral reef ecosystems throughout the world according to which the outer and inner Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are claimed to be 28% and 36% respectively, down the path towards ecological extinction. This is a highly significant claim given the important status of the GBR, so the result deserves attention and objective scrutiny. This paper sets out to scrutinise the methodology used by Pandolfi et al. (2003) under four headings: (i) the guilds are poorly weighted and focus largely on human target species, rather than species that are ecologically important to reefs; (ii) the numerical scale used to "measure" the state of the reefs is not well-founded and hence distorts the result; (iii) the analysis fails to recognize that the GBR is of relatively recent origin and therefore never existed in the pre-human/pristine cultural period as defined by PAN; and (iv) in many cases it is doubtful that the literature cited demonstrates the claimed decline in ecological state. It is concluded that the work of Pandolfi et al. (2003) cannot be used as justification that the Great Barrier Reef has lost significant resilience, or that it is particularly susceptible to global warming because of its present supposedly degraded state"
but keep sending me what you've got.
"Climate change is a major threat to coral reef ecosystems worldwide. A key determinant of the fate of reef corals in a warming climate is their capacity to tolerate increasing thermal stress. Here, an increase in thermal tolerance is demonstrated for three major coral genera (Acropora, Pocillopora and Porites) following the extensive mass bleaching event that occurred on the Great Barrier Reef (Australia) in 1998. During the subsequent and more severe thermal stress event in 2002, bleaching severity was 30–100% lower than predicted from the relationship between severity and thermal stress in 1998, despite higher solar irradiances during the 2002 thermal event. Coral genera most susceptible to thermal stress (Pocillopora and Acropora) showed the greatest increase in tolerance. Although bleaching was severe in 1998, whole-colony mortality was low at most study sites. Therefore, observed increases in thermal tolerance cannot be explained by selective mortality alone, suggesting a capacity for acclimatization or adaptation. Although the vulnerability of coral reefs remains largely dependent on the rate and extent of climate change, such increase in thermal tolerance may delay the onset of mass coral mortalities in time for the implementation of low-emission scenarios and effective management"
"Coral reefs throughout the world are under severe challenges from many environmental factors. This paper quantifies the size structure of populations and the growth rates of corals from 2000 to 2008 to test whether the Discovery Bay coral colonies showed resilience in the face of multiple acute stressors of hurricanes and bleaching. There was a reduction in numbers of colonies in the smallest size class for all the species at all the sites in 2006, after the mass bleaching of 2005, with subsequent increases for all species at all sites in 2007 and 2008. Radial growth rates (mm yr−1) of non-branching corals and linear extension rates (mm yr−1) of branching corals calculated on an annual basis from 2000–2008 showed few significant differences either spatially or temporally. At Dairy Bull reef, live coral cover increased from 13 ± 5% in 2006 to 20 ± 9% in 2007 and 31 ± 7% in 2008, while live Acropora species increased from 2 ± 2% in 2006 to 10 ± 4% in 2007 and 22 ± 7% in 2008. These studies indicate good levels of coral resilience on the fringing reefs around Discovery Bay in Jamaica"
Stability in temperate reef communities over a decadal time scale despite concurrent ocean warming
Abstract
Despite increasing scientific and public concerns on the potential impacts of global ocean warming on marine biodiversity, very few empirical data on community-level responses to rising water temperatures are available other than for coral reefs. This study describes changes in temperate subtidal reef communities over decadal and regional scales in a location that has undergone considerable warming in recent decades and is forecast to be a ‘hotspot’ for future warming.
Plant and animal communities at 136 rocky reef sites around Tasmania (south-east Australia) were censused between 1992 and 1995, and again in 2006 and 2007. Despite evidence of major ecological changes before the period of study, reef communities appeared to remain relatively stable over the past decade. Multivariate analyses and univariate metrics of biotic communities revealed few changes with time, although some species-level responses could be interpreted as symptomatic of ocean warming. These included fishes detected in Tasmania only in recent surveys and several species with warmer water affinities that appeared to extend their distributions further south. The most statistically significant changes observed in species abundances, however, were not related to their biogeographical affinities. The majority of species with changing abundance possessed lower to mid-range abundances rather than being common, raising questions for biodiversity monitoring and management. We suggest that our study encompassed a relatively stable period following more abrupt change, and that community responses to ocean warming may follow nonlinear, step-like trajectories.
there again coral can survive and grow after sustaining an atomic bomb 1000x the force of Hiroshima that heated the seas in the area to 55,000 degrees.
ANON
Do you think that John Vernons self claimed predictions for the future will be as accurate as the METs.
oh what the hell ,
lets just read that again,
:Plant and animal communities at 136 rocky reef sites around Tasmania (south-east Australia) were censused between 1992 and 1995, and again in 2006 and 2007. Despite evidence of major ecological changes before the period of study, reef communities appeared to remain relatively stable over the past decade"
Anon-101a here:
"The Met Office’s forecasts were"
Nothing to do with Ocean acidification. Or coral extinction. Or climate.
Anon-101a here:
"there again coral can survive and grow after sustaining an atomic bomb"
Since we're talking about Ocean Acidification, what does an atomic bomb have to do with anything?
Anon-101a here:
"Stability in temperate reef communities over a decadal time scale despite concurrent ocean warming"
Yup, and stability of aircraft "proves aircraft can't crash", amirite?
Anon-101a here:
"have you more predictions from John Vernon "
Why would he have predictions from John Vernon? John Vernon already has them.
Moreover, you don't understand John Vernon's paper, as eloquently and voluminously pointed out to you by many others, with stupendous amounts of (ignored by you) evidence to support that claim, where you merely have assertion with no actual evidence of comprehension.
Anon-101a here:
"Anonymous richard said...
some more models for you."
So when you asserted that everyone should discard models and only actual field evidence should be used, you were talking, as usual, complete and utter bollocks.
Or was it merely hypocrisy: you were going to, but you were not going to accept anyone else doing it.
Anon-101a here:
Dicky, please explain your evidence that the corals survived the atomic bomb blast over them.
Yup, and stability of aircraft "proves aircraft can't crash", amirite?
i see so what you are saying is that the coral might be effected but judging by the the amount of people in the air at any given day at around 500,000, I am more likely to be killed by being kicked by a donkey ,
so the chances of coral being effected are about as much as me being kicked to death by a donkey.
Anon-101a here:
"i see so what you are saying is ..."
If that's what you "saw" then you didn't see what I said, dick.
Will you agree that the corals died when the bomb went off over them?
Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing
Abstract
Five decades after a series of nuclear tests began, we provide evidence that 70% of the Bikini Atoll zooxanthellate coral assemblage is
resilient to large-scale anthropogenic disturbance
Anon-101a here:
"Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing"
Everything died, Dick.
That's what an atomic bomb *does*, Dick.
Or are you claiming that the corals resisted and survived a direct atomic bomb blast?
Evidence for that, please.
Anon-101a here:
"resilient to large-scale anthropogenic disturbance"
What about global anthropogenic disturbance?
The Thylacine didn't survive a small scale anthropogenic disturbance.
Neither did the Dodo.
Mastodons: didn't manage either.
Smallpox? Nope, that lost too.
Wolves in the UK? Nope.
Lots of evidence that even small scale anthropogenic disturbance.
Anon-101a here:
Internet Idiot Dick proclaims that murder is harmless! Humanity has survived millions of years of murder, proof that the act is perfectly safe! Proclaims the laws against murder are the conspiracies of Communist Leftist Nazi politicians around the world to impose a New World Order and Steal His Lunch Money! Calls for the laws against murder to be repealed!
Or are you claiming that the corals resisted and survived a direct atomic bomb blast?
Evidence for that, please.
I just did read the paper,
One of the most interesting aspects is that the team dived into the vast Bravo Crater left in 1954 by the most powerful American atom bomb ever exploded (15 megatonnes - a thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb). The Bravo bomb vapourised three islands, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees, shook islands 200 kilometers away and left a crater 2km wide and 73m deep.
After diving into the crater, Zoe Richards of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and James Cook University says, “I didn’t know what to expect – some kind of moonscape perhaps. But it was incredible, huge matrices of branching Porites coral (up to 8 meters high) had established, creating thriving coral reef habitat. Throughout other parts of the lagoon it was awesome to see coral cover as high as 80 per cent and large tree-like branching coral formations with trunks 30cm thick. It was fascinating – I’ve never seen corals growing like trees outside of the Marshall Islands.
there is no pollution from man at this location, hence the coral is pristine and growing well.
ANON<
an introduction for you
1. Introduction
Understanding the resilience, or capacity for biodiversity
to persist after disturbances (Connell, 1997), is crucial to
devising appropriate management actions to mitigate biodiversity loss (Hughes et al., 2003; Harley et al., 2006). Current
records of long-term to large-scale resilience from disturbances are scant, as there are few opportunities to study
large-scale impacts and long-term recovery. Bikini Atoll in
the Marshall Islands provides a unique opportunity to
investigate such biodiversity resilience because between
1946 and 1958, 23 surface and subsurface thermonuclear
experiments were conducted there (Niedenthal, 2001)
Richard,
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't take your meds, did you?
""Or are you claiming that the corals resisted and survived a direct atomic bomb blast?"
I just did read the paper"
No, the paper doesn't say that the corals are immune to atomic blasts, Dick.
Anon-101a here:
"Understanding the resilience, or capacity for biodiversity to persist after disturbances"
Obviously you don't understand the paper, Dick.
Every organism under the blast was killed.
This did not happen over the entire globe, so did not affect every coral everywhere.
Tell me, do you know how life actually works?
Anon-101a here:
"The Bravo bomb vapourised three islands"
But left all the life on those islands alive?!?!
"But left all the life on those islands alive?!?!
the islands were vaporized.
coral lives in the sea,
anon
just try not to worry,
[1] The impacts of increases in atmospheric CO2 since the midst of the 18th century on average seawater salinity and acidity are evaluated. Assuming that the rise in the planetary mean surface temperature continues unabated, and that it eventually causes the melting of terrestrial ice and permanent snow, it is calculated that the average seawater salinity would be lowered not more than 0.61‰ from its current 35‰. It is also calculated –using an equilibrium model of aqueous carbonate species in seawater open to the atmosphere- that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv (representative of 18th-century conditions) to 380 ppmv (representative of current conditions) raises the average seawater acidity approximately 0.09 pH units across the range of seawater temperature considered (0 to 30°C). A doubling of CO2 from 380 ppmv to 760 ppmv (the 2 × CO2 scenario) increases the seawater acidity approximately 0.19 pH units across the same range of seawater temperature. In the latter case, the predicted increase in acidity results in a pH within the water-quality limits for seawater of 6.5 and 8.5 and a change in pH less than 0.20 pH units. This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Anon-101a here:
"coral lives in the sea,"
The islands are in the sea too. Remember: crater.
And when the sea is, as you claim, 55,000 degrees, it isn't there any more: vapourised ring a bell?
Just because you don't understand what goes on in an atomic explosion doesn't mean you can bullshit everyone: we're not as dumb as you.
So you claim that corals are more resilient than rock, can withstand "water temperatures" of 55000 Kelvin and are immune to radiation and fallout from ground zero atomic weapon explosiions.
Right...
Anno-101a here:
"Assuming that the rise in the planetary mean surface temperature continues unabated"
Aren't you assuming that there's no such thing as carbonic acid?
Or do you not care about facts if you can get away with fable?
Anon-101a here:
Dick claims: Look at all the people in Hiroshima! The atomic weapons have ACTUALLY INCREASED the number of people living there! IT'S A MIRACLE CURE!!!
Dick claims: Look at all the people in Hiroshima! The atomic weapons have ACTUALLY INCREASED the number of people living there! IT'S A MIRACLE CURE!!!
I am not sure what you are talking about.
But back to the bikini atoll after 23 atomic explosions, the coral is pristine condition.
there again when man leaves nature to itself it does rather well.
Wildlife thriving after nuclear disaster? Radiation from Chernobyl ...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411084107.htm
11 Apr 2012 - "We can't rule out some effect on wildlife of the radiation, but wildlife ... zone around Chernobyl have recovered and are actually doing well.
anon,
just don't worry.
"This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations"
Richard quotes the abstract from Hugo Loáiciga's execrable 2006 paper and says "just don't worry".
The thing is that Loáiciga was well and truly blown out of the water by real experts on ocean acidification.
"Currently, about one-third of the CO2 released to the
atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil, and gas (and land
cover change) is absorbed by the surface ocean [IPCC, 2001;
Sabine et al., 2004]. This CO2 drives well known changes in
the aqueous carbonate system that result in decreases of both
ocean pH and carbonate-ion concentrations [Stumm and
Morgan, 1996; Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow, 2001]. A body of
literature describes observed and modeled penetration of
CO2 into the ocean and its impact on ocean chemistry [e.g.,
Caldeira and Wickett, 2003; Feely et al., 2004; Sabine et al.,
2004; Caldeira and Wickett, 2005; Orr et al., 2005]. An
additional body of literature shows that changes in ocean
chemistry within the ranges predicted for the next decades
and centuries present significant risks to marine biota,
especially those that make their shells or skeletons from
carbonate minerals (see references in Gattuso et al. [1999],
Kleypas et al. [1999], Seibel and Fabry [2003], and Po¨rtner
et al. [2004]). The effects of increasing atmospheric CO2
concentrations on the carbonate system in seawater are not
reversible on human time scales, and thousands of years will
be required before the system can "recover" to pre-industrial
conditions [Archer et al., 1998; Archer, 2005; Zachos et al.,
2005]. The paper by Loáiciga [2006] makes incorrect
assumptions about the role of alkalinity in seawater chemistry,
and ignores modern research on the effects of changes in
seawater chemistry on marine biota, and thus draws erroneous
conclusions that simply do not apply to the real ocean."
Richard continues his strategy of straw men, non sequiturs, red herrings, and sundry other logical fallacies, as well as continuing his ignorance of the fundamental physical, chemical and biological science. This might work in denialist fantasy land, but it doesn't change reality.
What a dick.
Bernard, careful with the word play, please.
Be satisfied with winning the argument.
"careful with the word play, please."
Sorry about that Brian.
In Aus it's usually taken in that context to just mean a foolish person, rather than anything anatomical.
Next time I'll just tell him straight up that he's being foolish.
:-)
oh give over.
An
additional body of literature shows that changes in ocean
chemistry within the ranges PREDICTEDfor the next decades
and centuries present significant risks to marine biota,
even in the predicted ranges it fall s between the accepted sea level ranges of 6.5 -8.5
More predictions from that idiot John VErnon who based his forecasting on the past when coral was laid down at 5000ppm.
Coral is doing fine, we know that because at Bikini atoll where 23 atomic explosions happened decades on the the coral is in pristine condition,
Pollution is the problem not and change in ph of the seas.
Barnard,
you quoted
"The paper by Loáiciga [2006] makes incorrect
assumptions about the role of alkalinity in seawater chemistry,
and ignores modern research on the effects of changes in
seawater chemistry on marine biota, and thus draws erroneous
conclusions that simply do not apply to the real ocean."
tell me from what paper that comes from if not from a paper then admit you added it on,
seeing all the papers you quoted were from an earlier date than 2006 i can only assume those are your own word.
that apers is a dick.
Quality Criteria for Water state: ‘‘For open ocean waters
where the depth is substantially greater than the euphotic
zone, the pH should not be changed more than 0.2 units
outside the range of naturally occurring variation . . .’’
yep and the natural variation is -- oh they dont; say, let me help them thr seas are stable bewteen 7.5 and 8.5
yes its john vernon agin not giving full details.
i see the paper did say that, my apologies,
the guy who wrote that paper is a absolute biggesst lying dick i have seen
he quotes the EPA
"Quality Criteria for Water state: ‘‘For open ocean waters
where the depth is substantially greater than the euphotic
zone, the pH should not be changed more than 0.2 units
outside the range of naturally occurring variation . . .’’
this is what the EPA actually wrote and he left out.
"US EPA 1976 Recommended Marine pH Criteria
“pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 for marine aquatic life (but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the
normally occurring range).” These marine criteria apply to open-ocean waters within 3 miles of a State
or Territory‟s shoreline where the depth is substantially greater than the euphotic zone (depth of water
that receives sufficient light for photosynthesis and growth of green plants)"
so, BErnard,
now you have quoted that paper that uses the EPA as a guide
will you finally admit that the marine life is safe between an acidic 6.5 to an alkaline 8.5
Anon-101a here:
"will you finally admit that the marine life is safe between an acidic 6.5 to an alkaline 8.5"
No. Why should he admit to a false statement like that?
Anon-101a here
"yep and the natural variation is"
And dick would proclaim that the natural variation of the earth's temperatures is between +60C and -90C, and somehow this means that everything is fine as long as we're within those bounds for the average earth temperature.
What a freaking moron!
What's really weird is the dipstick thinks that they're fooling anyone.
he actually uses EPA as a reference and then misquotes them and leaves out crucial information.
that marine life is allowed to be between a ph pf 6.5 and 8.5
Bernard you should be ashamed of your self for using this paper as a reference.
Anon-101a here:
""Dick claims: Look at all the people in Hiroshima! The atomic weapons have ACTUALLY INCREASED the number of people living there! IT'S A MIRACLE CURE!!!"
I am not sure what you are talking about."
Your asinine claims that because corals appear decades later where there was a bomb blast is "proof" that corals survive a nuclear blast IS PRECISELY AS RIDICULOUS as claiming that people living at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is "proof" that humans can survive a nuclear blast.
Something you dare not see.
Anon-101a here:
"Bernard you should be ashamed of your self for using this paper as a reference."
You should be ashamed of an asinine claim like "that marine life is allowed to be between a ph pf 6.5 and 8.5" and the above.
However, you believe you're fighting the forces of Satan here, hence no matter what evil you perpetuate, it's justified in your holy crusade.
really anon give up!!!!
Bernard has quoted a paper that quoted the EPA that actually says the PH of marine life is fine between
6.5 and 8.5
I want an apology for use of a paper that so blatantly lied
Anon-101a here
“(but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range).”
You should (but cannot) feel ashamed at printing that up whislt complaining that Bernard was missing things, then REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT YOU QUOTED.
Marine life can't handle a change more than 0.2 units pH from where they adapted to live.
Something you refuse to believe in your crusade.
Anon-101a here:
"I want an apology for use of a paper that so blatantly lied"
Since your claim about the lie is blatant falsehood, you can go whistle, dick.
You should be ashamed of an asinine claim like "that marine life is allowed to be between a ph pf 6.5 and 8.5" and the above.
don't be stupid,
Bernard quoted the paper , and they misquoted the EPA.
I shall be passing this on ,
I have to thank Bernard for directing me to this paper .
Anon-101a here:
""You should be ashamed of an asinine claim like "that marine life is allowed to be between a ph pf 6.5 and 8.5" and the above."
don't be stupid,"
No, it would be stupid if I expected you to feel ashamed of your asinine claims.
I don't expect you to, however, you're incapable of any such thing, Dick.
Anon-101a here:
"I shall be passing this on"
To what? Another nutbag?
Will you be passing on "(but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range)."? Or will you ignore that because it's devastating to your case?
I have to say that was a classic in stupidity ,
so we know have BERNARD who uses a paper to prove to me that a slight change in the seas PH will be harmful , quotes a paper that misquotes the EPA, and actually what the EPA states is that MArine life should be between a PH of 6.5 and 8.5.
So finally Bernard- you get it!!!!!!!
Well done!!!!!
well done for using that paper even if it did misquote the EPA.
JUST PURE CLASSIC!!!!!
I just do not know what more can be said, it is the final humiliation for BErnard.
anon,
""You should be ashamed of an asinine claim like "that marine life is allowed to be between a ph pf 6.5 and 8.5" and the above."
Not me !!!
the EPA
US EPA 1976 Recommended Marine pH Criteria
“pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 for marine aquatic life
Anon-101a here:
"I have to say that was a classic in stupidity"
At least you're beginning to realise how stupid you were there.
"a paper to prove to me that a slight change in the seas PH will be harmful , quotes a paper that misquotes the EPA,"
Who ways: (but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range)
I.e. exactly what Bernard said.
Seems like you notice the stupidity you're done, but prefer to ignore it.
""You should be ashamed of an asinine claim like "that marine life is allowed to be between a ph pf 6.5 and 8.5" and the above."
Not me !!!
the EPA"
Who said " (but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range)"?
Yes, believing that a change of pH from 6.5 to 8.5 will have no effect on marine life is patently absurd.
Anon-101a here:
“pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 for marine aquatic life"
(but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range)
Pure Classic Bernard,
the ph of the seas will decline , that a co2 level of 760 ppm will lower the pH of the surface ocean by 0.28
With MArine life allowed at a ph of 6.5 - 8.5
what was the point of the paper, thev have by miss- quoting the EPA scored the biggest clunking mistake i have ever seen
Anon-101a here:
"the ph of the seas will decline , that a co2 level of 760 ppm will lower the pH of the surface ocean by 0.28"
But you claimed that the seas were STABLE?!?!
NOW you claim they'll CHANGE?!?!?!
Anon-101a here:
"thev have by miss- quoting the EPA scored the biggest clunking mistake i have ever seen"
Obviously you're now so excited you only have one hand to type with, Dick.
And yes, you misquoting the EPA is the biggest clunking mistake you've ever seen.
You won't, however, acknowledge it.
And yes, you misquoting the EPA is the biggest clunking mistake you've ever seen.
really show me how,
I showed how the paper quoted miss quoted not show me how i miss quoted,
do you want me to direct you to the EPA regulations or can you find your own way there.
Anon-101a here:
"really show me how,"
By eternally ignoring this bit from the report:
(but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range)
yep,
"US EPA 1976 Recommended Marine pH Criteria
“pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 for marine aquatic life (but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the
normally occurring range).” These marine criteria apply to open-ocean waters within 3 miles of a State
or Territory‟s shoreline where the depth is substantially greater than the euphotic zone (depth of water
that receives sufficient light for photosynthesis and growth of green plants)"
so then what is the normally varying range?
so you do not think outside 0.2 outside the quoted 6.5- 8.5
Anon-101a here:
"yep,
"US EPA 1976 Recommended Marine pH Criteria
(but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range).”
Yep.
That's what you continually ignore. You're misquoting it as if it says that marine animals can manage a pH varying by 2 units outside the normally occurring range.
after all, the paper miss- quoted this paragraph and omitted the ph 6.5 -8.5 allowed for marine life,
why omit this
Anon-101a here:
"so then what is the normally varying range?"
Depends on the location, ducky. And different species will adapt to that locally different value, which is why, for example, extremophiles exist where the pH of seawater can be as low as 2.5, whilst no sea bass can manage it.
And if that changes by more than a small amount, that species must either move or die out.
As happened to coral species in the past.
And how clueless do you claim to be to not understand this?
Anon-101a here:
"after all, the paper miss- quoted this paragraph"
No it didn't.
anon.
That's what you continually ignore. You're misquoting it as if it says that marine animals can manage a pH varying by 2 units outside the normally occurring range.
What is the normally occurring range??
this should be a simple question for you,
the paper quoted does not say what the normally occurring range is - so what is it?
a range ?
after all, loo]king bakc through this thread you sniffed at he comment of a range allowed,
So what range is allowed,
give me the range allowed a PH between ? and ?
for marine life,
Anon-101a here:
"What is the normally occurring range??
this should be a simple question for you,"
Already answered, but, just like your misquoting of the EPA report, you will refuse to see it in any public writing because it's devastating to your claims.
the EPA have quoted a ph of between 6.5 - 8.5 for marine life,
so what range do you think is allowed,
Anon-101a here:
The EPA have quoted a ph of between 6.5 - 8.5 (but not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the normally occurring range for marine life
You missed that out.
Again.
even if you want to say 0. outside a natural range,
What range is this natural range,
so 6.5 -8.5 is a natural range as the EPA has quoted it.
Anon-101a here:
"even if you want to say 0. outside a natural range"
Even if you want to say 100, the answer has still been given to you, ducky.
Anon-101a here:
"so 6.5 -8.5 is a natural range as the EPA has quoted it."
Nope.
They didn't, YOU said that, not the EPA.
so effectively you have not mentioned a natural range ,the paper did not quote a natural range and the only people quoting a range is the EPA at 6.5 - 8.5
the hilarious thing is the paper quoted the EPA who quote a range of 6.5 - 8.5 for marine life,
so there we have it,
do let me know what your natural range is though.
maybe this is clearer for you.
Guam: “For open ocean waters where the depth is substantially greater than the euphotic zone, the pH
should not be changed more than 0.2 units from the naturally occurring variation, or in any case outside
the range of 6.5 to 8.5.”
so supposing the natural range was 8.1 - 8.2
why would the EPA, who the paper quoted, allow a range of 6.5 - 8.5
Guam pH 6.5 - 8.5
here are some lovely pictures of coral at Guam
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=coral+at+Guam&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZnEYU6v9F5KM7AaI-YCoCQ&ved=0CEYQsAQ&biw=1022&bih=670
Assume the naturally occurring variation is 7.1 to 8.4
What are the limits?
Two limits are stated; one relative to the naturally occurring variation and one absolute.
Guam pH 6.5 - 8.5 naturally occurring variation,
what is the absolute
Anon-101a here:
"Guam pH 6.5 - 8.5 naturally occurring variation,"
OF THE SEA.
Not the acceptable levels for continued existence.
CO2 levels of 1000ppm is possible for survival of humans as long as they can remove themselves from that atmosphere for 16 out of the 24 hours of a day.
So 1000ppm CO2 is fine.
Unless the entire atmosphere is at 1000ppm. At which point humans die off.
Anon-101a here:
"what is the absolute"
Why does that matter?
richard, the idea of combining relative and absolute limits is nothing new, did not start with the EPA, and is used in many instances. For instance, I first came across them nearly 40 years ago in the frrequency response specifications for RF and microwave spectrum analyzers.
If you read the actual EPA document (most of the comments above never link to it) you'll see that they are regional and/or state-based limits.
I think Florida's gives the clearest description of the relative and absolute nature of the limits:
Florida: For Class II and III (marine) waters, pH shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background of coastal waters, provided that the pH is not lowered to less than 6.5 units or raised above 8.5 units. If natural background is less than 6.5 units in marine waters, the pH shall not vary below natural background or vary more than one unit above natural background levels. If natural background is higher than 8.5 units, the pH shall not vary above natural background or vary more than one unit below natural background.
What you seem to find contradictory or puzzling is simply a lack of understanding. Oh, imagine that.
Anon-101a here:
"here are some lovely pictures of coral at Guam"
Got any while the bomb was going off?
Anon-101a here:
"why would the EPA, who the paper quoted, allow a range of 6.5 - 8.5"
Why would the EPA, who the paper quoted, say pH should not be changed more than 0.2 units from the naturally occurring variation if it didn't matter if it varied by 2.0?
Anon-101a here:
"Guam pH 6.5 - 8.5 naturally occurring variation,"
Did the EPA say that?
Or was that another Dick splash?
Anon-101a here:
"Guam pH 6.5 - 8.5 naturally occurring variation,"
yes, from the EPA site.
i suggest you visit the site as the paper Bernard quoted used EPA quotes from this site, of course they changed the words around and missed out the 6.5 - 8.5
Anon-101 a here:
""Guam pH 6.5 - 8.5 naturally occurring variation,"
yes, from the EPA site."
Which doesn't claim Guam pH is 6.5-8.5 naturally occurring variation.
Or, in other words "no, from your arse".
Anon-101a here:
"of course they changed the words around"
Uhm, you changed the words around.
Nothing (other than you) said that it was the naturally occurring variation.
Nothing (other than you) said it was Guam.
oh Kevin,
you absolutely nailed it!!!!
If natural background is less than 6.5 units in marine waters!!!
so now we know the seas vary between 6.5 and 8.5
Anon-101a here:
"oh Kevin,
you absolutely nailed it!!!!"
So when Kevin called you out on your errors, you agreed with him!
Anon-101a here:
DicK: "Kevin, you absolutely nailed it!!!!"
What Kevin Said: "What you seem to find contradictory or puzzling is simply a lack of understanding. Oh, imagine that."
Yup, nailed it.
oh yes
Kevin now agrees that ph of the seas at Guam should be between 6.5 and 8.5,
and if he doesn't could he suggest what the actual ph of the seas should be there with that coral!
Anon-101a here:
"Kevin now agrees that ph of the seas at Guam should be between 6.5 and 8.5"
Nope, Dick now disagrees with reality.
OK, I lied: he's ALWAYS disagreed with reality.
No, dick, he didn't agree that.
so at least we are all in agreement now, the seas can be between a ph of 6.5 and 8.5
wow I am sorry it goes lower,
Virginia: pH range is 6.0-9.0 for Open Ocean and Estuarine waters (Class I and II).
Anon-101a here:
"so at least we are all in agreement now,"
Yes, we all agree you're a lunatic, Dick.
We can all agree on that, right?
Anon-101a here:
" Anonymous richard said...
wow I am sorry it goes lower,"
So you agree you lied earlier!
can you imagine a few days back it was all about the change gfrom 8.2- 8.1 and then got you to 7.8- 8.5 and now you are talking about the seas at a ph of 6-9 as allowed by the EPA.
It took a few nights and a few versionns but got you there in the end .
Post a Comment