[QUOTE]All sea life will be affected because carbon dioxideemissions from modern society are making the oceans more acidic, a major new report will say.
The eight-year study from more than 250 scientists finds that infant sea creatures will be especially harmed.
This means the number of baby cod growing to adulthood could fall to a quarter or even a 12th of today's numbers, the researchers suggest.
The assessment comes from the BIOACID project, which is led from Germany.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41653511[/url]
More [I]acidic[/I] oceans 'will affect all sea life'
Title fixed.
Could we theoretically dump a ton of basic chemicals in the ocean to partially offset this while we reduce emissions? Or would it require too much/cause other problems (as I'd imagine dumping chemicals in the ocean would)?
:SummonOvB:
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;52817424]Could we theoretically dump a ton of basic chemicals in the ocean to partially offset this while we reduce emissions? Or would it require too much/cause other problems (as I'd imagine dumping chemicals in the ocean would)?[/QUOTE]
While we're at it we should put a huge ice cube in the ocean to stop global warming
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;52817424]Could we theoretically dump a ton of basic chemicals in the ocean to partially offset this while we reduce emissions? Or would it require too much/cause other problems (as I'd imagine dumping chemicals in the ocean would)?[/QUOTE]
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
[editline]24th October 2017[/editline]
I mean, you would need [I]a lot[/I] of whatever stuff you use.
Here are some scientists that did it on an extremely smaller scale to observe how an isolated reef would respond to pre-industrial conditions:
[url]https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/reversing-ocean-acidification[/url]
[quote]This means the number of baby cod growing to adulthood could fall to a quarter or even a 12th of today's numbers, the researchers suggest.[/quote]
Shit. Imagine all the communities, and nations, that rely on fishing going down from this. It's a domino effect that hits the whole world.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52817570]Shit. Imagine all the communities, and nations, that rely on fishing going down from this. It's a domino effect that hits the whole world.[/QUOTE]
You think the refugee crisis is bad now, just wait.
Thank you, 250 scientists. Single politician, what do you have to say about this?
"It ain't true."
You heard it here, folks. That's all a myth. Amp up production!
We are so fucked in the long term it hurts to watch.
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;52817424]Could we theoretically dump a ton of basic chemicals in the ocean to partially offset this while we reduce emissions? Or would it require too much/cause other problems (as I'd imagine dumping chemicals in the ocean would)?[/QUOTE]
no because the amount and dispersion of chemicals required is unfathomable we already pump billions of tons of basic slurries into the ocean yet its a drop to the gigatons of co2 dissolving into it across the entire surface of the ocean
Anyone who thinks this doesn't matter needs to try running a home reef tank
shit is sensitive as FUCK
I don’t want to live on an earth where the typical marine life is jellyfish :(
[QUOTE=Stolons;52818003]I don’t want to live on an earth where the typical marine life is jellyfish :([/QUOTE]
Jellyfish are sensitive to pH changes too, like practically everything in the ocean
If you think that jellyfish would survive intense ocean acidification you'd be dead wrong
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;52817424]Could we theoretically dump a ton of basic chemicals in the ocean to partially offset this while we reduce emissions? Or would it require too much/cause other problems (as I'd imagine dumping chemicals in the ocean would)?[/QUOTE]
[B]I'm bored.[/B]
This isn't completely accurate, but should give a ballpark estimate.
According to Wiki, the volume of the entire ocean is 1.35 billion cubic kilometers.
this translates to 3,5663227068e+20 gallons or to write it out completely:
356.632.270.680.000.000.000 gallons
[t]https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/3/35/Raise-pH-in-Pool-Step-5-Version-2.jpg/aid1351983-v4-900px-Raise-pH-in-Pool-Step-5-Version-2.jpg[/t]
[url]http://hallpoolsupply.com/dosage-charts/[/url]
A guideline often used in pool maintenance is to add 6 ounce (170g) of soda ash to 10.000 gallons of water to raise the pH by 0,2 points.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png/1200px-WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png[/t]
This chart from Wikipedia shows the estimated change of acidity from 1700 to 1990. Lets play safe and call it on average 0,1 pH point.
If we were to apply the soda ash rule to the entire ocean, to raise it by 0,1 pH:
356.632.270.680.000.000.000 gallons / 10.000 = 35.663.227.068.000.000 loads of 6 ounce soda ash, whice gives us a total weight of 213.979.360.000.000.000 ounce
Luckily we only need half of that because we only need to raise it by 0.1 gives us: 106.989.680.000.000.000 ounce
or 3.343.427.500.000 US tons.
[t]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/1280_640/images/live/p0/2d/dz/p02ddzn8.jpg[/t]
The BelAZ 75710 is currently world's largest highest payload capacity haul truck, with a capacity of 496 US tons.
You would need[B] 6.740.781.250[/B] truckloads for this operation.
So in short:
[QUOTE=OvB;52817559]Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Lovely Leslie;52818066]Jellyfish are sensitive to pH changes too, like practically everything in the ocean
If you think that jellyfish would survive intense ocean acidification you'd be dead wrong[/QUOTE]
The rising acidity has caused jellyfish blooms.
So it really depends where it ends.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52817802]no because the amount and dispersion of chemicals required is unfathomable we already pump billions of tons of basic slurries into the ocean yet its a drop to the gigatons of co2 dissolving into it across the entire surface of the ocean[/QUOTE]
That'd be a really dystopic sort of thing, just these large chemical plants that don't do anything but pipe thousands of tons of anti-acids into the ocean all day to offset the waste of all the other factories...
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52818159]The rising acidity has caused jellyfish blooms.
So it really depends where it ends.[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression it wasn't the rise of acidity, but that it was a combination of overfishing of their predators and that jellyfish can survive with very little oxygen, allowing them to thrive in areas that have become dead zones due to algal blooms that was causing their population spikes, not necessarily the rising acidity of the ocean itself.
If the ocean pH becomes more acidic, I can't imagine they'll be able to thrive since I read ideal moon jelly pH is 8.0 - 8.3
I also don't know that much about this though, so I could be totally wrong.
[QUOTE=GabrielWB;52818145][B]I'm bored.[/B][/QUOTE]
OR about 16.8 million loads of this:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/1CVceJg.jpg[/img]
[editline]24th October 2017[/editline]
I don't know enough about Jellyfish for a solid answer but I imagine it'll be one of those things that will be bad for them in the long run, even if it does help them out for awhile.
we're all gona dieee
The thought of dying alone AND on a fucked-up Earth is making me not feel good at all.
[QUOTE=GabrielWB;52818145][B]I'm bored.[/B]
This isn't completely accurate, but should give a ballpark estimate.
According to Wiki, the volume of the entire ocean is 1.35 billion cubic kilometers.
this translates to 3,5663227068e+20 gallons or to write it out completely:
356.632.270.680.000.000.000 gallons
[t]https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/3/35/Raise-pH-in-Pool-Step-5-Version-2.jpg/aid1351983-v4-900px-Raise-pH-in-Pool-Step-5-Version-2.jpg[/t]
[url]http://hallpoolsupply.com/dosage-charts/[/url]
A guideline often used in pool maintenance is to add 6 ounce (170g) of soda ash to 10.000 gallons of water to raise the pH by 0,2 points.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png/1200px-WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png[/t]
This chart from Wikipedia shows the estimated change of acidity from 1700 to 1990. Lets play safe and call it on average 0,1 pH point.
If we were to apply the soda ash rule to the entire ocean, to raise it by 0,1 pH:
356.632.270.680.000.000.000 gallons / 10.000 = 35.663.227.068.000.000 loads of 6 ounce soda ash, whice gives us a total weight of 213.979.360.000.000.000 ounce
Luckily we only need half of that because we only need to raise it by 0.1 gives us: 106.989.680.000.000.000 ounce
or 3.343.427.500.000 US tons.
[t]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/1280_640/images/live/p0/2d/dz/p02ddzn8.jpg[/t]
The BelAZ 75710 is currently world's largest highest payload capacity haul truck, with a capacity of 496 US tons.
You would need[B] 6.740.781.250[/B] truckloads for this operation.
So in short:[/QUOTE]
But... What if you used something way way way more basic??
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52818664]But... What if you used something way way way more basic??[/QUOTE]
If you were gonna do something like that, you'd want it to be gradual anyway. You wouldn't want to just dump a whole lot of the most basic bitch ever in the ocean and hope it works. You'd have to disperse it over a shitload of area over time as to not shock the shit out of things. So you probably wouldn't want to use super basic stuff.
[QUOTE=OvB;52818681]If you were gonna do something like that, you'd want it to be gradual anyway. You wouldn't want to just dump a whole lot of the most basic bitch ever in the ocean and hope it works. You'd have to disperse it over a shitload of area over time as to not shock the shit out of things. So you probably wouldn't want to use super basic stuff.[/QUOTE]
So maybe super fine powder dispersed by planes? Idk man
Or I dunno, maybe aggressively pursue reducing emissions.
The marine ecosystem is so fragile and we are basically shitting in it
I mean look at the great barrier reef :frown:
We aren't fucking nature over, we're fucking ourselves. Big time.
Maybe if more people realized this there'd be a greater sense of urgency in general.
I'm kind of amazed there aren't HUGE protests and rallies all over the world for this stuff, we should all be storming the streets at every opportunity to protest the people trashing our planet, but it seems like such a low priority for so many people.
I think for a lot of people, myself included at times, we feel really helpless, and an attitude of ignoring the issue is the only way to feel good about the situation, which is awful.
[QUOTE=someguyihate;52818878]I'm kind of amazed there aren't HUGE protests and rallies all over the world for this stuff, we should all be storming the streets at every opportunity to protest the people trashing our planet, but it seems like such a low priority for so many people.
I think for a lot of people, myself included at times, we feel really helpless, and an attitude of ignoring the issue is the only way to feel good about the situation, which is awful.[/QUOTE]
Other shit like the pacific (also atlantic) garbage gyre with micro plastics or fertiliser run off causing algae blooms leading to[URL="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-dead-zone.html"] ocean anoxia [/URL] happens too. I think the issue is there are so many issues and if a group targets one issue they're deemed hypocrits/libcuck beatnik; if a group targets all the issues they lack purity of purpose and will struggle garnering support. Also with so many issues, pollution, social justice, inequality, war, corruption we are kind of overwhelmed.
Also anti globalwarming (linked to ocean acification from co2) is no longer a rational topic, its become partisan/identity issue. Conservatives a climate change deniers because they're conservative not because they're reasonable people (note some conservatives believe in climate change and its a shame yall get thrown in the same tub as the crazies) On top of that you have powerful lobbyists making sure politicians do nothing and feeding the public misinformation.
also people have their own problems, its more rational to worry about global warming causing mass death/disease/migration/famine/destability in 20 years but people are more immediately concerned about paying rent tomorrow, why their mate stopped talking to them and that the price of a weekly bus pass has gone from £9 to £15 in the past 10 years.
Also with different issues affecting groups differently its effectively divide and conquer with each group seeing it as a zero sum game where any attention people devote to a different cause is attention not devoted to their cause.
You've heard people calling global warming racist, its weird, but it might be an effective way of making people primarily concerned with social justice also concern themselves with global warming; its not literally that global warming is racist, its that developed nations of certain races are making most of the pollution and are the ones who reap the biggest benefit and will see the least consequences of global warming - we get nice cars, warm houses, lots of convenience at the cost of pollution, when the climate changes we get slightly worse conditions, maybe increase food prices and destability, they get starvation, war, disease and drought. And those less developed nations tend to be none white/none chinese.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52818797]Or I dunno, maybe aggressively pursue reducing emissions.[/QUOTE]
Let's not be too idealistic here. Profit's far more important than having a biosphere capable of sustaining us. And by the time the retards in power realize we need to actually take action it may very well be too late. (And we'd deserve what we get for it.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
