Why pH is important in a reef tank

geridoc

Well-Known Member
This article is one of the clearest explanations I have seen as to why pH is important to marine life. Some may find the remainder of the site objectionable for political reasons, but this particular article takes care to sidestep those issues.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Interesting.
I do find the graph to be straight not curved ans so the assertion the co2 increase is increasing to be bogus.
I also not that like most climate change analysis it is more or less static.
Even though it did point out the algae and plants will benefit from the co2, it made no effort to include that in the analysis to see what counteraction the plant life would have.
my .02
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
The author agrees with you, and describes the increase in carbon dioxide as "steady", not as a change in rate add you imply he did.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396467/why-ph-is-important-in-a-reef-tank#post_3532578
The author agrees with you, and describes the increase in carbon dioxide as "steady", not as a change in rate add you imply he did.
from the article

Quote:
In climate science, many signals are often combined within a single time series. Figure 1 shows a sinusoidal annual cycle (the figure inset), superimposed over a steady decades-long increase from about 315 ppm to 385 ppm. The annual cycle reflects the earth’s seasons and land-based vegetation: terrestrial plants take up carbon dioxide during their growing season in spring and summer, and release it again during fall and winter. There is more land surface in the northern hemisphere (including Mauna Loa), so the contribution from the southern hemisphere does not balance that from the northern hemisphere. The overall curve is concave upwards, meaning that the overall increase of CO[sub]2[/sub] is accelerating.


So there!!!!!!


(LOL)
 

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
The article also assumes that we won't run out of oil before 2100, or come up with a different technology to offset carbon emissions.


I don't think it's just the coral reefs that are screwed, it's humans as well.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Algae bloom on a global scale. :flame:
What about the increase in water levels/surface area as another form of counter action? What if old reefs died and new ones formed in new locals and marine life evolved/adapted?
I do believe the graph was concave but the rather short time frame in which it has been illustrated makes it tough to perceive. There once was a time when people thought the earth was flat because they couldn't see the curve.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/396467/why-ph-is-important-in-a-reef-tank#post_3532606
The article also assumes that we won't run out of oil before 2100, or come up with a different technology to offset carbon emissions.


I don't think it's just the coral reefs that are screwed, it's humans as well.

Nuclear power is a pretty good gap stop until we figure out a better energy source. Ironically, the green people won't let a CO2 neutral energy source be developed.
 

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
interesting.

But what about nuclear meltdowns affecting the environment, like the Japanese meltdown not long ago? ... three mile island, Chernobyl... if we average one nuclear meltdown every fifteen years, is the world any better off?

Lets face it: people are living way beyond their means. We throw stuff away here in America that people in other countries would save up for months for. We run our air conditioners in our homes to keep our pets comfortable... or at least have it nice and warm/cold when we get home. We live in HUGE houses, we have our groceries trucked in from at least 1500 miles away before we can eat it.

What happened to the majority of people growing a garden in their backyards, using less electricity because they don't want it, turning off the television and working/playing outside? It's the society we live in now that is causing the majority of problems...

The article also doesn't take into account oceanic pollution either. Sure, ocean acidification because of global warming and higher than normal CO2 levels... but what about all the industrial waste, heavy water, radioactive water from nuclear plants, chemical fertilizers from runoff, medications, plastics, and tons of human waste going down our rivers and out into our oceans... excess sedimentation around reefs that choke out the sunlight and increased nutrient levels way beyond capacity...
 

bang guy

Moderator
All of those nuclear facilities you are mentioning were built many decades ago. The modern reactors are far superior. There's one design with ceramic balls doesn't even need a cooling system. Preventing a meltdown is no longer the biggest issue, it's waste disposal. That one still needs to be solved.
 

bang guy

Moderator
This is what my county looks like now. I'm all for alternative energy, don't get me wrong, but I can't say they improve the landscape. A couple small underground nuclear reactors could generate more power than thousands of these things.

 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/396467/why-ph-is-important-in-a-reef-tank#post_3532601
from the article


So there!!!!!!


(LOL)
Confusing - at the start of the paragraph he talks about a steady increase, then concludes at the end of the paragraph that the rate is increasing. The original curves cover much more time, and the increasing rate is more visible than you can see in the short time interval covered in that figure. Keeling has measures of carbon dioxide on his web site for the past 2000 years, and the rise is easy to see there, although there is no clear connection between cause and effect in his data.
 
Top