asyouwish72
Posts: 69
Joined: 11/2/2004 Status: offline
|
OK, deep breath, folks. Repeat after me: Humanity really IS altering the global carbon cycle. That's just a fact. The people who deny it make themselves look like flat-earthers (who knows, maybe some of the posters here ARE flat earthers, for all I can tell). Atmospheric CO2 has been directly measured for decades- it's a simple, precise technique that a college undergrad could do well, and the values climb every year (with a small seasonal swing owing to photosynthesis & respiration, depending on where you are). We also have extremely good records based on gas inclusions in ice cores (another direct measure, so there's no worry about interpretation of proxies) going back several hundred thousand years, and we are far outside the natural range within that time. Glacial periods had CO2 concentrations of about 210 PPM, interglacial and preanthropogenic levels were ~ 280, and we're approaching 400 now. Once again, this is fact, not theory. There is no wiggle room whatsoever in these numbers. They simply are what they are. Like any gas, CO2 solubilizes in water based on partial pressure (a fancy way of saying "the amount in the air"). Once in water, CO2 forms a proportional amount carbonic acid. Note the "acid" part. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more CO2 in the ocean = ocean acidification. I honestly cannot believe that anyone could doubt this. Really. It's that simple. And just to cut off the obvious question, yes, it IS CO2 form fossil fuel combustion that drives this. There is an isotopic signature of fossil fuels in both C13 (stable heavy carbon) and C14(radiocarbon, which is entirely absent in fossil fuels owing to thier trememdous age), and it turns out that signal has been imprinted on atmospheric CO2 during the industrial period (look up the Suess Effect for further reference). As to the biological & climatological effects of all of this, well, that's an area that's open for debate (although people who claim that the recent email leaks for the UK discredit antrhopogenic climate change research obviously have not read either the emails or the underlying science; really those allegations are pretty trivial to the overall picture), but issuing a blanket denial of acidification is just ignorant. No other word for it. Sorry. PS- Yes, the 'volcano' story features acid water. That's not uncommon at geologic seeps, and nobody who knows anything about the subject gets excited by it. It's a matter of scale. That area, and others like it, are absurdly tiny next to the volume of the entire surface ocean, which is where the atmosphere-derived acidification is occuring.
|