Unanticipated consequences of ocean acidification: A noisier ocean at lower pH
http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/documents/hester_et_al_08_ocean_noisier_pH_jrl.pdf

After reading the paper several times in appears that no actual measurements were made by this research team. What they did was draw conclusions from other research papers with a lot of CYA verbiage add to give them wiggle room. There are many variables which impact the absorption of sound in seawater including salinity/density and temperature. There is a passing reference to temperature and no mention of salinity or density at all. If being able to hear better is a survival advantage to marine life and decreasing pH improves the transmission of sound, then if this paper were correct lower pH values should be a plus to marine life dependent on long-range communications, not a negative.

Having kept tropical and non-tropical species of fish for over 50 years, I am well area of the sensitivity of some species of fish to pH but that was not the subject of this paper. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Michael Ronayne

Too true. I’m no submariner, but I’m sure that some sonar tech could instruct us about thermoclines and reflection layers in the water.

Also, have they taken into account the incredible array of auditory sensitivity in various forms of marine life? They don’t all hear the way we do.

As a parting shot I would like to point out that acid (rock) vastly increased the noise in my environment, and although it has reduced my auditory range, I was still able to find food and mate. I think that the whales will be ok.

The noise was deafening, with all sorts of clicks and squeaks and other critter conversation; lots of shrimps were responsible for a good part of it. Didn’t here any engine noises although the Cortez is alive with ourboard motor boats, and I didn’t here any whales or porpoises either, although sometimes the porpoises will coime right up to you in shallow water.

And I don’t think the surface waters are getting more acidified or even very much less alkaline. Since CO2 is more soluble in cooler water aa deeper water, there must be a continuous pumping of CO2 from the surface to deeper layers to the the better solubility cooler layers. So I doubt that surface concentration of CO2 is increasing very much.

In any case the whales communicate over huge distances at low frequencies, and there is more to signal revcovery than just propagation distance. Whales have pretty sophisticated signal processing capability or else they simply wouldn’t be able to communicate over the distances they do. So I would want to see a whole lot more signal to noise ratio data from this story source before I would give it any credibility.

So If I flush my toilet twice instead of once, is that going to result in any disturbance of a surfing competition in Hawaii next month; or is it only the wind produced by butterflies that can do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[1] Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075).[2][3]

OMG – The ocean pH has dropped -0.000308642 per year over the last 241 years. I’m moving to another planet that isn’t covered by 2/3 ocean.

Sound more like a SWAG (Statistical Wild Ass Guess) than a POOMA to me.

That 90% loss of communication is a POOMA number. (Bern, that stands for “Preliminary Order Of Magnitude Approximation.”)

And regarding the relative noise levels of fresh Coke and flat Coke, beer has ‘em both beat.

Science has become an outmoded concept.

Underwater volcanoes are the most likely answer.

The original test was to evaluate the effects of the air guns at distances of 2m, 10m, 20m, 30m, and 40m. The equipment was a full array (if I remember correctly, 40 guns of various sizes) of the air guns.

The Alaska biologist suggested they start at 2m to see how bad it could get. Cages of fingerlings were placed 2m from the air guns and the array was discharged. Examinations of the fingerlings showed no physical damage. The Biologist declared the rest of the test was unnecessary and the use of the air guns was approved for use in Alaskan waters.

Needless to say, my boss was greatly relieved when he came back to Houston.

I have to admit they never thought to do the 2m test on a blue whale. psych evals were also not performed on the fingerlings

“Blue whales’ capacity to communicate has been reduced by 90 percent,” she said.
Now, just how did they come up with that number? When I was a kid, they were thought to be extinct. The current estimate is 5000 to 12000 worldwide. Did they perform a telephone poll?

Researcher: dials phone
Whale: Who’s there?
Researcher: Dave
Whale: Dave’s not here
Researcher Scribbles furiously: Blue whale’s’ capacity to communicate has been reduced by 90 percent

I think they pulled that number from a place I’d rather not mention.

But I seem to remember that there is some amount of salt in the oceans (35 ppt). And IIRC adding Sodium Chloride, NaCl, to water raises PH (so ocean water is slightly alkaline) and the oceans have a PH higher than 7 (between 7.5 and 8.4).

So, adding CO2 to sea water would serve to slightly lower the PH closer to the equilibrium level of 7.

Not exactly the image of acid oceans conjured up by our dear members of the media.

Relating increased noise levels in the oceans to shipping and similar man-created activity is one thing. Blaming greenhouse gases is quite another.

Let’s stop a moment and reread this very telling piece. Look beyond the political/religious environmental silliness contained in the article to see the real objective. All that talk about greenhouse gases and ocean acidification is but a smokescreen for the real target. The real objective is that of “combatting ocean noise, which is caused primarily by shipping, oil and gas exploration and military sonars.” This is yet another example of aggressive environmentalism, which poses as being aimed at sensible conservation, while in fact it reveals the anti-man/anti-life motivation of aggressive environmentalism. Everything in Nature is good; everything mankind does is bad and must be stopped.