From the British Antarctic Survey and the University of East Anglia comes one of those press releases where I just have to wonder if this won’t eventually go the way of the “global warming causes mutated frogs” claim that turned out to be a parasite and not global warming. After all, it is well known that ships ballast can transport invasive species to places they normally would not migrate to, so with eco-tourism in Antarctica being all the rage now, I wonder if the issue isn’t somehow related to the snails being more susceptible due to some such influence? After all, how did they survive climate shifts (with changes to ocean pH) for millions of years if nature so poorly equipped them? I’m just not convinced that a slight shift (-0.11) to the ocean pH being more neutral than basic is the cause of this. The oceans are still basic at ~8.069, not acidic. To be acidic they’d have to be less than 7.0 See table.
On the plus side, they avoided that ridiculous “canary in the coal mine” meme in this PR.
First evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures in the Southern Ocean
The shells of marine snails – known as pteropods – living in the seas around Antarctica are being dissolved by ocean acidification according to a new study published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. These tiny animals are a valuable food source for fish and birds and play an important role in the oceanic carbon cycle*.
During a science cruise in 2008, researchers from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the University of East Anglia (UEA), in collaboration with colleagues from the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), discovered severe dissolution of the shells of living pteropods in Southern Ocean waters.
The team examined an area of upwelling, where winds cause cold water to be pushed upwards from the deep to the surface of the ocean. Upwelled water is usually more corrosive to a particular type of calcium carbonate (aragonite) that pteropods use to build their shells. The team found that as a result of the additional influence of ocean acidification, this corrosive water severely dissolved the shells of pteropods.
Above: before and after images.
Ocean acidification is caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere emitted as a result of fossil fuel burning. A number of laboratory experiments have demonstrated the potential effect of ocean acidification on marine organisms. However, to date, there has been little evidence of such impacts occurring to live specimens in their natural environment. The finding supports predictions that the impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and food webs may be significant.
Lead author, Dr Nina Bednaršek, formerly of BAS and UEA, and now of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says:
“We know that the seawater becomes more corrosive to aragonite shells below a certain depth – called the ‘saturation horizon’ – which occurs at around 1000m depth. However, at one of our sampling sites, we discovered that this point was reached at 200m depth, through a combination of natural upwelling and ocean acidification. Marine snails – pteropods – live in this top layer of the ocean. The corrosive properties of the water caused shells of live animals to be severely dissolved and this demonstrates how vulnerable pteropods are. Ocean acidification, resulting from the addition of human-induced carbon dioxide, contributed to this dissolution. ”
Co-author and science cruise leader, Dr Geraint Tarling from BAS, says:
“Although the upwelling sites are natural phenomena that occur throughout the Southern Ocean, instances where they bring the ‘saturation horizon’ above 200m will become more frequent as ocean acidification intensifies in the coming years. As one of only a few oceanic creatures that build their shells out of aragonite in the polar regions, pteropods are an important food source for fish and birds as well as a good indicator of ecosystem health. The tiny snails do not necessarily die as a result of their shells dissolving, however it may increase their vulnerability to predation and infection consequently having an impact to other parts of the food web.”
Co-author, Dr Dorothee Bakker from the University of East Anglia, says:
“Climate models project a continued intensification in Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century if atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase. In turn, this will increase wind-driven upwelling and potentially make instances of deep water – which is under-saturated in aragonite – penetrating into the upper ocean more frequent. Current predictions are for the ‘saturation horizon’ for aragonite to reach the upper surface layers of the Southern Ocean by 2050 in winter and by 2100 year round. ”
This research was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the European Union Marie Curie Early Stage Training Network.
Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean by N. Bednaršek, G. A. Tarling, D. C. E. Bakker, S. Fielding, E. M. Jones, H. J. Venables, P. Ward, A.Kuzirian, B. Lézé, R. A. Feely, and E. H. Murphy is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Abstract:
The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, a result of human activities1. In the upper layers of the Southern Ocean, aragonite—a
metastable form of calcium carbonate with rapid dissolution kinetics—may become undersaturated by 2050 (ref. 2). Aragonite undersaturation is likely to affect aragonite-shelled organisms, which can dominate surface water communities in polar regions3. Here we present analyses of specimens of the pteropod Limacina helicina antarctica that were extracted live from the Southern Ocean early in 2008. We sampled from the top 200m of the water column, where aragonite saturation levels are around 1 as upwelled deep water is mixed with surface water containing anthropogenic CO2. Comparing the shell structure with samples from aragonite-supersaturated regions elsewhere under a scanning electron microscope, we found severe levels of shell dissolution in the undersaturated region but not elsewhere. According to laboratory incubations of intact samples with a range of aragonite saturation levels, eight days of incubation in aragonite saturation levels of 0.94–1.12 produced equivalent levels of dissolution. As deep-water upwelling and CO2 absorption by surface waters is likely to increase as a result of human activities2,4, we conclude that upper ocean regions where aragonite-shelled organisms are affected by dissolution are likely to expand.
The paper is available here: ftp://ftp.nerc-bas.ac.uk/pub/photo/PR-2012-13-Tarling/ngeo1635_GT%20edits.pdf
And of course they can compare their findings to surveys that were carried out when CO₂ was only 280ppm. What do you mean, they can’t?
“Ocean acidification is caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere emitted as a result of fossil fuel burning.”
Wrong in several ways, and irrelevant.
If the *upwelling* is destroying the shells, then it is important to examine the cause of the *upwelling* itself. This is due to the Archimedes effect – the upwelling water is less dense. This could be due to many reasons – lower salinity and higher temperatures being the principal suspects.
The next question is why the water that is upwelling is dissolving the shells that formed in the cool surface waters (where the shells formed in the first place). If the upwelling water (coming from an area – the ocean floor – that is not accessible to atmospheric CO2) is more acidic than the high-CO2 surface water, then the question becomes “Where is the deep water acidity coming from?”
May I suggest geothermal vents such as black smokers, and other ocean floor volcanic activity?
Hold on a minute there, I’m confused. HOW does global warming cause the Southern Ocean Wind to intensify? It was my casual understanding that the temperature difference between the polar regions and the tropics decreases as the planet gets warmer? If I’m correct about that why do models show an increase in wind as the result of less temperature difference?
Note that wiki says the shells of these beasts are 2-9 microns thick. Not very structural, maybe vestigial.
“Although the upwelling sites are natural phenomena that occur throughout the Southern Ocean, instances where they bring the ‘saturation horizon’ above 200m will become more frequent as ocean acidification intensifies in the coming years.”
Aha! The giveaway sentence! The saturation horizon rising up to less than 200m depth is a natural phenomenon which occurs throughout the Southern Ocean. The assertion that CO2 dissolving in the surface of the ocean will increase the frequency of this phenomenon is made without any evidence whatsoever. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how a gas dissolving at the surface of a very large body of water could have any bearing on what happens 3000 feet below the surface!
Wow, they are being acidified and dissolving at 8.0. I wonder how fast they would dissolve in that very acidic in comparison environment of pure H2O at 7.0 on the scale? Yup prbably melt right before our eyes, you know that water is dangerous stuff.
Argonite likes to collect in the shallows from deep water updrafts, e.g. in the Bahamas where it is mined via dredging. http://aragonitesource.com/
“Co-author and science cruise leader”
Sorry, just can’t get the “Love Boat” theme out of my head now.
I love the idea that all these earnest worthy self righteous researchers might themselves be spreading the problem while they solemnly lecture the rest of us….
Pteropod shell game. The global warming pea is now under the ocean acidification shell.
mmmm….one instance of upwelling at 200m out of how many ? How many other instances have there been before. Ah ha now I see….”Climate models project an intensification…” Thats when I stopped reading.
I know this is a press release. I must repeat that to myself. But:
“Ocean acidification is caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere emitted as a result of fossil fuel burning. A number of laboratory experiments have demonstrated the potential effect of ocean acidification on marine organisms. However, to date, there has been little evidence of such impacts occurring to live specimens in their natural environment. The finding supports predictions that the impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and food webs may be significant.”
This is a statement of “fact”??? The first sentence is so far-flung as to get entangled in the moons of Jupiter. Absolutely no foundation in fact whatsoever. Corrosive upwelling?? How did all that “acid” make it down to the nutrient rich depths..? By passing through a huge natural buffer? Now back to the assertion that “there has been little evidence”. Well, that’s true. What with things like carbonate compensation depths and the small issue of the ocean’s basic pH…
Reading this stuff is really agonizing. There are no real ‘findings’ just speculation that corroded shells are proof of model results. A “potential effect” is undemonstratable, you sillies.
So, on the basis of 20 samples of tiny snails taken from a single site, from a total of 55 samples taken from a total of 6 sites along a 600-mile-plus route, all taken in February, 2008, plus a dash of climate modeling, they leap to the conclusion that burning fossil fuels is increasing “acidification” of the oceans (to be slightly less basic), that this increased acidification will become more prevalent at shallower depths (where the snails tend to live), that winds (that apparently aggravate this prevalence) will intensify as atmospheric CO2 increases, which is the one and only reason that this species of snail has weak shells?
tadchem says:
If the *upwelling* is destroying the shells, then it is important to examine the cause of the *upwelling* itself. This is due to the Archimedes effect – the upwelling water is less dense. This could be due to many reasons – lower salinity and higher temperatures being the principal suspects.
Water’s a bit odd in that it is most dense at 4 Celsius. Does this effect still hold for salt water.
The next question is why the water that is upwelling is dissolving the shells that formed in the cool surface waters (where the shells formed in the first place). If the upwelling water (coming from an area – the ocean floor – that is not accessible to atmospheric CO2) is more acidic than the high-CO2 surface water, then the question becomes “Where is the deep water acidity coming from?”
There’s nothing in the original article to indicate that they have done so much as dangle a pH meter over the side of a boat. Never mind carrying out a detailed chemical analysis of the water. Especially to compare it with water in which the animals thrive.
May I suggest geothermal vents such as black smokers, and other ocean floor volcanic activity?
Especially given that release of strong acids is commonly associated with vulcanism.
Ah! The magic “May” is used as ‘Proof” by implication.
Grant money seekers will make up any story to gain the gelt/gelder/gold/geld…….
Frankly they need gelding!
Translation, coulda,woulda we don’t have a clue. But be very,very worried. Lets see, yes all living at expense of taxpayer and attempting to create(manufacture) another alarm to justify their parasitism.Interesting that follow the money, keeps returning to our employees attacking us.
Your opinion of your government and its minions will never be higher than it is right now.
tadchem says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:44 am
…. The next question is why the water that is upwelling is dissolving the shells that formed in the cool surface waters (where the shells formed in the first place). If the upwelling water (coming from an area – the ocean floor – that is not accessible to atmospheric CO2) is more acidic than the high-CO2 surface water, then the question becomes “Where is the deep water acidity coming from?”
May I suggest geothermal vents such as black smokers, and other ocean floor volcanic activity?
________________________________
Yes and if I recall The life-forms that support the food chain at deep-sea hydrothermal vents also participate in the formation of the minerals that make up the sulfide chimney structures…. The bacteria oxidate the sulfur and hydrogen sulfide to sulfur acid.
Scientists Locate Apparent Hydrothermal Vents off Antarctica
Maybe they should be looking for vents instead of blaming CO2.
Logic fail. Upwelled water is deep water brought to the surface. This means it’s “old water” that hasn’t been near the surface since the beginning of the recent rise in CO2 (last 100 years). It’s less basic than surface waters because of increased CO2 from deep water biological processes and possibly volcanic input. Shoddy work.
Mike M says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:45 am
Hold on a minute there, I’m confused. HOW does global warming cause the Southern Ocean Wind to intensify?….
_______________________
It is not warming. The lies and data fiddling are coming back to bite.
Looks like they chipped the shell or found one in poor condition, then took the pic. False assumptions abound like ocean acidification. In 1930, the ocean PH was 7.9. The ocean is alkaline. Human caused CO2 emissions. Is that different than non human caused CO2? The current rise in CO2 is more likely a natural rise from the MWP 1,000 yrs ago. NOAA’s involvement = corrupt manipulated data. I don’t believe any of this.
Amazing that these grant slurping embezzlers calling themselves scientists can keep the gravy train rolling.
So this means snails can build shells only during those short geologic periods in which atmospheric is at or near a minimum? I wonder how all the others survived throughout geologic time?
…atmospheric CO2 is at…
(sorry for the omission)
The British Antarctic Survey was once a well respected research organisation, but the AGW brigade have brainwashed them into spouting drivel.
On the lighter side, this is yet another gem that I can relate to people with regard to the rubbish we are told about “Climate Change”, the others are deaf fish and invasion by aliens who regard us as a threat to the galaxy for abusing our own planet!
Anthony, could we please have an archive on WUWT devoted to the most crazy claims of AGW “scientists”? There could be an annual prize for the most bizarre piece of “research” based on votes by WUWT readers.
In the CAGW business ‘timing’ is everything. It’s a fundamental law of PR and the Warmists play the PR game brilliantly. The intense activity of people like Mc Kibben every time there’s a storm is a good example of this technique.
In the Warmist PR calendar this is the time of the year we start talking about Antarctica. (Summer)
Oh dear…from the Warmist perspective the news aint too good from down there; lots of ice and very cold. Warmish Brethren in Australia and South Africa haven’t had much to cheer them either(this being the coolest winter in a generation in many parts).
So the poor Scien…sorry Activists need to come up with something appropriate and scary that fits in with the narrative. Ocean Acidification anyone?
Thanks…that will do nicely.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/121125/challenges-face-un-climate-summit-qatar
Challenges face UN climate summit in Qatar
Actually this is a well documented event. It happens wherever deep water is forced up from time to time. This happens in Oregon, for instance. AGW promoters lied about the Oregon event as well.
A better title for the article would be “Lying AGW Promoters and The Lies They Tell.
WUWT actually dealt with this particular AGW fibbing poly before:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/northwest_oyster_die-offs_show_ocean_acidification_has_arrived/2466/
If the problem is caused by upwelling of deep waters, then how did the CO2 get into the deep waters. Most of those take hundreds to thousands of years to over turn.
“Lead author, Dr Nina Bednaršek, formerly of BAS and UEA…” I think the UEA connection kind of devalues any conclusions from that quarter.
Pteropods or more correctly marine opisthobranch gastropods, appeared on Earth in the Cenozoic era when Carbon Dioxide levels have been shown to be around 1000pp not the 380pp of today so three times higher than at present. They seemed to have thrived in conditions that these Scientist say will destroy them.
techgm says:
November 26, 2012 at 11:46 am
my thoughts exactly……..
The carbonate compensation depth (CCD) is the depth at which calcareous skeletons of marine animals dissolve at the same rate at which they accumulate. This depth is controlled by factors including (but not limited to) the concentration of carbonate ions, pH, water pressure, temperature, and salinity. This fluctuating equilibrium depth is called the “lysocline”. Below the lysocline, calcium carbonate dissolution becomes progressively more intense.
This is just more bad science from the University of East Anglia. The authors have examined a miniscule amount of data and drawn the wrong conclusion. They agree natural upwelling throughout the Southern Ocean influences the depth of the lysocline. As others have pointed out, upwelling of ancient, deep waters rich in dissolved minerals and nutrients is what makes the Southern Ocean so productive. The authors simply discovered an area where intense wind driven upwelling pulls the lysocline to less than 200m depth; no surprise there! There is no data connecting human activities, atmospheric CO2 levels, ocean acidification, upwelling, and the depth of the lysocline.
If they want to test the theory that “Climate models project a continued intensification in Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century…” that will allow the lysocline to reach the upper surface layers of the Southern Ocean by 2050, they need to map and monitor the lysocline to see if it rises.
bbc radio was airing this last nite and all MSM, including Fox News, is running it now. bbc radio had no hint of the humour in the final line here:
26 Nov: BBC: Risk of robot uprising wiping out human race to be studied
The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) will study dangers posed by biotechnology, artificial life, nanotechnology and climate change…
The CSER project has been co-founded by Cambridge philosophy professor Huw Price, cosmology and astrophysics professor Martin Rees and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn…
Survival of the human race permitting, the centre will launch next year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20501091
26 Nov: RTT News: Cambridge Univ To Open Center For “terminator-like Studies”
Cambridge University will open a center for “terminator-like studies”, a facility which will be focused on understanding the “four greatest threats” to mankind, given as artificial intelligence, nuclear war, climate change and rogue biotechnology.
The Centre for the study of External Risk or CSER will be co-launched by astronomer royal Lord Rees, a leading cosmologist. The center will bring together academics from a wide range of disciplines, including astronomy, biology, robotics, neuroscience and even philosophy and economics.
Rees is the man who warned that mankind could destroy itself completely by the year 2100. He is launching the center alongside Huw Price, a philosophy professor at Cambridge. Also an integral part of the program is Skype co-founder, Jaan Tallinn…
http://www.rttnews.com/2011768/cambridge-univ-to-open-center-for-terminator-like-studies.aspx?type=gag
26 Nov: Fox News from The Sun: ‘Terminator center’ to open at Cambridge University
The Center for the Study of Existential Risk is being co-launched by astronomer royal Lord Rees, one of the world’s leading cosmologists. It will probe the “four greatest threats” to the human species, given as: artificial intelligence, climate change, nuclear war and rogue biotechnology…
“There’s a mismatch between public perception of very different risks and their actual seriousness,” Rees added. “We fret unduly about carcinogens in food, train crashes and low-level radiation.
“But we are in denial about ‘low-probability high-consequence’ events that should concern us more and which, in our ever more interconnected world, could have global consequences.”..
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/26/terminator-center-to-open-at-cambridge-university/
26 Nov: Guardian: Martin Rees: Cambridge University’s “Terminator studies” department – do we really need it?
Cambridge University is to launch a centre for the study of existential risks to the human race – including the rogue robot scenario depicted in the Terminator films. The astronomer royal, co-founder of the centre, explains why it’s necessary.
Over most of history, threats have come from nature – disease, earthquakes, floods, and so forth. But the worst now come from us. We’ve entered a geological era called the anthropocene…
Some global hazards are insidious. They stem from pressure on energy supplies, food, water and other natural resources. And they will be aggravated as the population rises to a projected nine billion by mid-century, and by the effects of climate change. An “ecological shock” could irreversibly degrade our environment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/shortcuts/2012/nov/26/cambridge-university-terminator-studies
Interesting that these things (thecosomata) first appear in the fossil record relatively shortly before the PETM (first appearing in the late Paleocene) and survived CO2 levels of around 2000 ppm.
Seems clear from the study’s own description that the dissolution is primarily from the natural upwelling. Their claim that “human-induced carbon dioxide contributed to this dissolution,” seems to be purely theoretical. CO2 uptake should have some dissolving effect but they have no indication that it is at all significant on had any measurable effect in this instance.
It is also purely theoretical that these natural upwellings will increase, and the occurance of a natural upwelling is certainly not evidence that such events are on the increase.
Ban dihydrogenmonoxide! Problem solved.
“These tiny animals are a valuable food source for fish and birds and play an important role in the oceanic carbon cycle,”
This is good ! no ?
Food chain is improved by weaker shells as more easily caught and more easily broken up to digest the poor creature inside and should any of the dear fishes start digesting the shell itself then this would be easier as well. The resulting increase in the size of the food chain predators should be easy to determine .
Can we coin a new name for `shellfish` that aren`t ?
This suggests a new defense against FOIA requests: “The CO2 ate my homework.”
I don’t understand why there is a persistence with this message about ocean acidification and why there appears too little scrutiny of this meme particularly from the press. For my own benefit I found myself checking again something that I already understand which is this for example:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/184ph.html
“Introduction and Definitions:
Acidic and basic are two extremes that describe a chemical property chemicals. Mixing acids and bases can cancel out or neutralize their extreme effects. A substance that is neither acidic nor basic is neutral.
The pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic.”
I understand this to mean the greatest corrosiveness will be at opposite ends of the PH scale; PH0 and PH14.
Although the PH scale runs from 0 to 14 this does not describe the fact that the PH scale is logarithmic but not starting from PH0 but from PH7 and outwards in opposite direstions.
This surely means corrosiveness can be described with a parabola. That way we can see that if the oceans are becoming more corrosive then either they are becoming more basic (alkaline) or there is an input of acidic water from somewhere.
“A number of laboratory experiments have demonstrated the potential effect of ocean acidification on marine organisms.”
What was the PH of those experiments and has that PH been observed in the real world?
This is all the usual annual pre-hyping for the climate-fest-orgy COP 18 being held at the global warming state of Qatar, the highest per-capita CO2 emitter.
All delegates will suffer from heat stroke, thus, what with the effect on their mental capacity and the 45C temperature they would anyway feel, the scammers will hope that the delegates would vote for keeping the AGW hypothesis and the trillions of dollars that come with it on life support.
I have come to learn that each year, October and November see a surge of global warmist reports full of hyped up catastrophic predictions of climate doom.
scizzorbill says:
Looks like they chipped the shell or found one in poor condition, then took the pic. False assumptions abound like ocean acidification. In 1930, the ocean PH was 7.9.
I’ve just seen someone elsewhere claim that it was ~8.25 in 1751 and 8.14 in 1994. Not sure what they had in the 18th century which could possibly have measured pH to two decimal places. Consider a value of 7.9 in 1930 leads to a conclusion of either “Ocean pH varies slightly over time, possibly following some cycle, it’s ~8 which is slightly alkaline.” or “Different methods of measuring the pH of ocean water can return slightly different results.”
pH can vary in some locations by more than one whole unit of pH on a monthly timescale. Any of these little variations are simply lost in the noise. This is particularly true when you get nearer to coastlines. Natural variation over relatively short time scales can be rather dramatic.
Ah, here we go. There was an article on that subject of short term variation of pH at a website called Watts Up With That back in January 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/
Phew! These are marine snails. For a moment there I thought there was a risk to the Great Woolly Snails that roam the Central Antarctic Highlands.
Shells evolved in the early Cambrian when CO2 was 7,000 ppm.
There were giant Ammonites 2.5 metres across when CO2 was 3,000 ppm and they completely dominated the oceans at different times. (Think of a Nautilus with 2.5 metre shell around it – the Nautilus is the last surviving species of the family – the others went extinct during the dinosaur extinction event).
This is just another over-blown exaggeration.
Wait a minute! What about this??
Then there’s this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified
and…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test
Next, the oceans’ pH varies widely, as this chart by Willis Eschenbach shows. Poor snails, how do they cope?
And here’s a free plug for Willis. You can find out a lot about almost any science subject here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/15/an-index-to-williss-writings
The after image looks like a hoax or else it shows damaged soft tissues. Aragonite is a very BRITTLE mineral that fails along cleavage planes. I can’t imagine it (no matter how thin) tearing and folding over like ripped clothing. Solution of aragonite should leave pits and shallow, smooth scours not folded edges. In addition, I wouldn;t like to try my luck dissolving aragonite in a solution with a pH greater than 7. (HCl and CH3COOH are good)
Whale barf?
Upwelling brings deep, old water to the surface. Yes, this deeper water is less basic than the surface water, but it is not manmade CO2 less basic. Along the west coast of Vancouver Island, South America and the California coast you get pHs down to 7.9 by global ocean water pH charts (sorry, don’t have the reference at hand, but a general google-search item). On the east coast of the USA, Chesapeake Bay has 7.9 also, and I don’t recall any dissolution of any shell live in or outland of CB.
Anyway, if it is upwelling water more than 40 years old, it ain’t possible to be related to increases in CO2.
I find their reasoning unfathomable.
Just to offer a few general chemistry clarifications rather than to comment specifically on the article’s claims:
1. To quote a previous post: “Wow, they are being acidified and dissolving at 8.0. I wonder how fast they would dissolve in that very acidic in comparison environment of pure H2O at 7.0 on the scale? Yup prbably melt right before our eyes, you know that water is dangerous stuff.”
For a sparingly soluble salt such as Fe(OH)2, the solubility at pH = 7.0 is 100x larger than at pH = 8.0. It would be more complicated and less severe for CaCO3, but a more acidic surroundings would facilitate dissolution of CaCO3 (unless protected by a surface layer). In a hand-wavy fashion: higher acidity -> lower hydroxide -> greater ability of CO3^2- to act as a weak base -> greater solubility of CaCO3 to produce carbonate anions. In any case, the previous writer should be advised that a single pH unit change can indeed have significant impacts on the solubility of certain materials. I make no warrant, however, regarding the specifics of the case with this article.
2. It is quite common in chemistry to refer to acidity and alkalinity in both absolute and relative senses. At 25-deg (C), pH > 7.0 are alkaline, [OH^1-] > [H3O^1+], whereas for pH < 7, the opposite holds true. Such solutions are considered alkaline or acidic respectively in the absolute sense. On the other hand, it is quite standard and correct to refer to pH = 7.8 as being acidic relative to pH = 8.0 (or pH = 5.8 as being alkaline relative to pH = 5.5). This is commonly used in reference to shifting a buffer's pH +/- relative to its "balance" point of pH = pKa of the weak conjugate acid from which the buffer is, in part made (the other part being the conjugate base (e.g. HCO3^1/CO3^2-).
3. The pH scale is temperature dependent. At physiological temperatures, neutral pH ~ 6.7, whereas at, say, 10-deg C, neutral pH ~ 7.3 or so. This shift is mediated primarily on the endothermic nature of the H2O + H2O = H3O^1+ + OH^1- reaction. Thus, pH = 7.0 can be itself "acidic," neutral, or "alkaline," depending on the temperature.
4. Someone above wrote that "This surely means corrosiveness can be described with a parabola." Whilst there is some degree of truth to this, I submit that the problem is with what we mean by corrosive: the term is descriptive rather than precise. Substances quite indifferent to alkaline conditions are readily attacked under acidic conditions and vice versa. For that matter, not even all acids are equally corrosive as, for example, nitric acid is a much more powerful oxidizing agent than hydrochloric or sulfuric (at similar concentrations) and, thus, much more "destructive" towards metal parts.
Hope this helps.
From the map of sample sites in the paper, looks like they would not have been far from the South Scotia Ridge, transform boundary with the Antarctic Plate.
Possible geothermal/hydrothermal vents? Not much mapping, but they are known to exist on the East Scotia Ridge and around the Antarctic Peninsula.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
If they want to test the theory that “Climate models project a continued intensification in Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century…” that will allow the lysocline to reach the upper surface layers of the Southern Ocean by 2050, they need to map and monitor the lysocline to see if it rises.
Typically all these people appear concerned about is claiming that their models “prove” their theories. Actually attempting to verify these theories against the real world dosn’t appear too important to them (even too much like hard work). Even though, in my understanding, this is the core of the “scientific method”.
Alec Rawls says:
It is also purely theoretical that these natural upwellings will increase, and the occurance of a natural upwelling is certainly not evidence that such events are on the increase.
How long have we been gathering (good) data on such upwellings? As with so many cases probably to short a time to draw any conclusions as to what might be “normal”.
This tops the stupidity; demand for bullshine, controls production of it, here it is:: ”The team examined an area of upwelling, where winds cause cold water to be pushed upwards from the deep to the surface of the ocean”.
This is hilarious…! This is a nugget, a gemstone, a wheelbarrow of crap, enjoy it nutters – check the calories first; if it’s a fattening crap…?
1] wind on the bottom of the ocean – pushing ”cold-water” up to the surface…?!
2] MORE TRUTH: around Antarctic; water on the bottom is ”WARMER” than on the surface! Here is how it works: from the north, currents bring warmwater – by the time it reaches southern part of Antarctic Ocean – that water cools down to 4-5-6-7C. Water at that temp has much greater density / heavier per volume, than the surface water that is already there – it makes it to sink to the bottom; PLUS, water on the bottom is kept WARMER, by the geothermal heat. Therefore: water on the bottom is ”WARMER” than water temp at the surface, by 3-4-5-7C.
Appetite, addiction to bullshine by you guys; is making them to go in overdrive; they earn their money, by feeding you, be grateful. .The damages they do, by the ice crushers – making corridors in the ice -> ruff water then brakes much more = is exposing the water to the unlimited coldness in the air; without ice as insulator -> water releases the remaining heat .= colder water than normal, destroys the leaving critters below == but that’s not your concern… you are contempt with your: ”positive / negative forcing, albedo, Eocene, Paleocene, Miocene, Crapocene…”shame, SHAME!!!
I guess I fail to see why this result is supposed to be funny…. Have you ever heard of a sentinel species?
It’s bloody obvious that CO2 emissions will change the pH of the ocean. How can anyone dispute that?
After that, it’s simply a matter of how do organisms respond to the change….
Snails do die from time to time and usually when they do, there is nothing around to maintain their home (shells). Appears the Boys managed to find a live shell and a dead one. Amazing that a freshly killed snail shell is in so much better shape than that of a not so freshly killed one. And small shells like these do take a while to fall to the bottom of the ocean. (/sarc) They also are damaged while the surrounding food chain feeds on the carcass of their deceased owner. Cheers –
Where did the table come from that says the field analysed pH in 18th century sea water was 8.179? This is pretty ridiculous. First the Sorenson scale, which became the pH scale, wasn’t invented until 1909. Did someone go back in time to make this measurement?
Measuring pH in high ionic concentration solutions, such as sea water, is extremely difficult. Even in the best of circumstances the uncertainty of a modern pH meter is 0.05 units. The best reference material standards, e.g. from NIST, have uncertainties around 0.01 units.
“After all, how did they survive climate shifts (with changes to ocean pH) for millions of years if nature so poorly equipped them? I’m just not convinced that a slight shift (-0.11) to the ocean pH being more neutral than basic is the cause of this.”
First off, the problem is not the 0.1 pH unit to date, but the rate of change. CO2 is going up and it is affecting the ocean for real, just as one could imagine.
The rate of change is more important the total change. In the past, changes took thousands of years and natural selection had time to work. Or millions of years….well you get the point.
Tens or hundreds of years, prob’ly too fast for species to adapt, unless you have knowledge contrary.
“The oceans are still basic at ~8.069, not acidic. To be acidic they’d have to be less than 7.0 See table.”
Are you joking? Acidification means increasing the [H+], not that the ocean pH is lower than 7.0. You must be joking, no one could be that dumb. But if you think people dont understand, why dont you help them out?
Poor Yorek, that was a very informative post.
One question and comment about this quote from you, “On the other hand, it is quite standard and correct to refer to pH = 7.8 as being acidic relative to pH = 8.0 (or pH = 5.8 as being alkaline relative to pH = 5.5).” A relative of mine is a senior chemist at a large corporation, and he informed me that he and his colleagues almost always prefer to use pH numbers when attempting to modify a solution to a higher or lower pH.
Just curious – are you saying that they are a minority? Thanks.
Maybe they shouldn’t have dipped them in the cocktail sauce before putting them under the microscope.
R. Shearer commented on On noes! ”The best reference material standards, e.g. from NIST, have uncertainties around 0.01 units”
You should ad another factor, to your genuine proof: ”pH in the sea is NOT equally the same everywhere.Plus, it changes to a degree in different seasons.
(for the first time sunspots were discovered in 1995-6 with good enough filter to see them === now they have ”the number of sunspots for the last 500years)… They create miracles / crap = because of the high demand for it. Crap is the best organic fertilizer, for the nutter’s brains…
From Mughal on November 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm:
I guess I fail to see why this result is supposed to be funny…. Have you ever heard of a sentinel species?
Actually we have heard of when a population faces stress that kills off members that cannot adapt, invoking natural selection, which leaves behind those than can adapt, leading to differentiation of local populations from species members found elsewhere not undergoing the stress, providing sufficient members of the stressed population remain to successfully procreate and maintain the population.
Those who mistakenly think evolution only works on timescales of hundred of thousands to millions of years, may freak out, talk about “sentinel species” and canaries in coal mines, and thus reveal their ignorance of how nature really works.
It’s bloody obvious that CO2 emissions will change the pH of the ocean. How can anyone dispute that?
Among other ways, since a portion of the atmospheric CO₂ increases are from ocean outgassing as the oceans have warmed, with atmospheric CO₂ increases historically following temperature, the oceans are releasing CO₂ that was already there. Can you explain how oceans will be acidified by CO₂ they are releasing? If warming the oceans leads to acidification, then isn’t pH based on ocean temperature rather than atmospheric CO₂ levels?
From trafamadore on November 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm:
The rate of change is more important the total change. In the past, changes took thousands of years and natural selection had time to work. Or millions of years….well you get the point.
Climate and environment can change rapidly. Volcanoes can erupt, blanketing an area in ash. Earthquakes can damage aquifers, rivers go elsewhere. Many things. Evolution can work far more faster than you expect.
As it is, the pH being experienced is not unprecedented, and if you actually knew about nature you’d know that wide pH swings are natural, on timescales down to daily. Your rate of change argument is garbage.
Are you joking? Acidification means increasing the [H+], not that the ocean pH is lower than 7.0. You must be joking, no one could be that dumb. But if you think people dont understand, why dont you help them out?
Strangely, the hazmat response people will talk about neutralizing a caustic spill, not about acidifying a caustic spill. Reference. You are also backwards on your definition of acidification. From reference:
Acidification means decreasing the [H+], not increasing it, and that’s when you’re making the pH less than 7 (neutral). If I take a 12 pH solution and change it to 10 pH, I have clearly not acidified it as it is still a caustic solution, I have made it less caustic.
===
*sigh*
Names like Mughal, trafamadore…
Is it too much to ask that when the (C)AGW-pushers dispatch their minions to disparage us, they issue them temporary troll names that sound like names and not like randomly-generated groupings of sounds?
Upwelling cold water has nothign to do with ocean acidification. They assume that CO2 is getting into the cold water at depth? Rriigghhhttttt!
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: November 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm:
“Acidification means decreasing the [H+], not increasing it,”
Jeez, you flunk my sophomore high school chemistry quiz. Acidification at any pH involved decreasing the pH value, which is the =log[H+]. Acidifying means INCREASING the [H+]!!!!!!!
Lowering pH from 12 to 10 is indeed still basic but also 2 pH units more acidic, moving from 10^-12 molar to 10^-10 molar H+.
@stefanthedenier,
“(for the first time sunspots were discovered in 1995-6 with good enough filter to see them === now they have ”the number of sunspots for the last 500years)…”
Where do you get this nonsense?
From http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/sunspots.html
“Records of naked-eye sunspot observations in China go back to at least 28 BCE.”
And
“The scientific study of sunspots in the West began after the telescope had been brought into astronomy in 1609. Although there is still some controversy about when and by whom sunspots were first observed through the telescope, we can say that Galileo and Thomas Harriot were the first, around the end of 1610; that Johannes and David Fabricius and Christoph Scheiner first observed them in March 1611, and that Johannes Fabricius was the first to publish on them. His book, De Maculis in Sole Observatis (“On the Spots Observed in the Sun”) appeared in the autumn of 1611, but it remained unknown to the other observers for some time.”
From higley7 on November 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm:
Among other issues, you just said:
1. Acidification is decreasing pH
2. pH is the =log[H+]
3. Acidifying is INCREASING the [H+].
Therefore decreasing log[H+] happens with increasing [H+].
When does increasing the argument cause a decrease of the log function value?
I couldn’t figure out how they came to their conclusions. The only sample with significant damage to the little shells was Su9. Is showed what appeared to be significant damage in samples netted between 400m and the surface. At least two other sample sites showed levels of aragonite in the range of .94-1.12, which they said showed significant levels of dissolving power. There was no explanation for why the other sample sites had little effect on the shells, even though they were subjected to similar conditions. It certainly appears that more is going on than a simple pH change. It was also interesting that Su9 had the highest concentrations a near surface levels, much higher than all the other sites 30-50% greater. No explanation of that either.
“The team examined an area of upwelling, where winds caused cold waters to be pushed upward from the deep to the surface of the ocean”
If you are going to do science by PR, then you are going to die on the PR sword. Calcium carbonate, whether as aragonite or as calcite, is more soluble in colder water, the colder the water, the higher the solubility. These would-be scientists have found an area where upwelling colder waters are dissolving pteropod shells, and so they sound the panic alarm on global warming. Furthermore: deep, upwelling waters presumably have been pristine in composition for several thousand years, unmixed with any recent atmospheric effect such as increasing CO2. This work is so egregious that one can only wonder. It might be concluded that they are looking for funding by pushing panic buttons, not by searching for scientific truth. The real truth is that are too many second-rate scientists on our public payrolls.
The after photo looks more like a peeling layer of algae then shell.
Hate to invoke high school chemistry around here but apparently the researchers slid through in some pass/fail program. pH. above 7 means the protons have been neutralized by negative ions. Any corrosiveness would have to be from alkalinity, no? Or do the protons take more time out from their wrestling matches with anions to chew these creatures at slightly lower pH.? Maybe the anions take advantage of the same time outs to chew on the other side…
Nope, you’re right. I went back to the equation.
pH = log₁₀ 1/[H+], [H+] is hydrogen ion concentration in moles/liter.
10^-1 mol/l is 1 pH, 10^-3 mol/l is 3 pH, 10^-1 is 100 times larger than 10^-3, so an increasing hydrogen ion concentration does give a decreasing pH.
Everything else though is still correct.
kadaka: “Climate and environment can change rapidly. Volcanoes can erupt, blanketing an area in ash. Earthquakes can damage aquifers, rivers go elsewhere. Many things. Evolution can work far more faster than you expect.”
Not usually. Usually, extinction is the name of the game. Sorry. All of the great changes in global temperatures have resulted in mass extinctions.
kadaka: “Acidification means decreasing the [H+], not increasing it”
Wrong.
Maybe you could check things before embarrassing yourself?
trafamadore says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Acidification means increasing the [H+], not that the ocean pH is lower than 7.0.
============
adding an acid to a base is not referred to as acidification. It is called neutralization, until such time as the acid has fully converted the base to a salt. At which point acidification takes place.
You could burn all the fossil fuels thought to exist on earth and the resulting CO2 could not produce acidification. The oceans are too large and too well buffered for this to occur.
How do we know this? Because just a few million years ago CO2 levels were higher than today and the oceans were more acidic (less caustic) than today and life did just fine.
In any case, anyone that believes the world is going to limit CO2 production hasn’t thought things through. The only way this can happen is to deny the poor of the world the benefits that the likes of Al Gore and Jim Hansen enjoy today.
This story I saw on Australia’s Catalyst a few years ago. That’s when I stopped watching that “science” show. What a load of bull. So is ocean acidification.
Greenies won’t do this experiment:
Put some eggshell (calcium carbonate) in soda water (which should be loaded with thousands of times more CO2 and carbonic acid than any sea water could ever be). Now wait until the shell dissolves. It won’t.
Oceans vary in PH from 7.9 to 8.3 (alkaline) depending on where you measure it. Warmer water outgasses CO2. Try opening a warm bottle of soda water compared to a cold one. So if the oceans warm, they’ll never become acidic via CO2. Noting they always brush against alkaline rocks there’s even less chance. Acidic oceans have been severely bunked!
umm.. pH is the negative log[H+]
Rainwater is WAY more acidic than the ocean…
(it is often actually slightly acidic rather than basic like sea water)
Does rain get rid of snails ??? 😉
Yet more silly claims about oceans which are less acidic than the pH of pure water.
The BBC was all over this one like a slug on lettuce:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20461646
From trafamadore on November 26, 2012 at 9:20 pm:
Not usually. Usually, extinction is the name of the game. Sorry. All of the great changes in global temperatures have resulted in mass extinctions.
You say that like mass extinctions are a bad thing. Are you upset at existing? Is it disappointing that they lead to the rise of the mammals and thus subsequently humans?
The expected global temperature increases are hardly that great, humans and the other species have faced greater during just this interglacial.
Besides, my researching shows the “Big Five” mass extinctions of the past 500 million years are attributable as given in this piece, some combination of massive volcanism, asteroid/comet impact, and/or global cooling. Global warming, like this mild stuff we have now? Nah.
Maybe you could check things before embarrassing yourself?
I did check beforehand, got hung up on the exponent sign change. Already corrected myself.
In any case, if you’re really worried about not embarrassing yourself:
1. Never post anything online. Someone will gladly point out its flaws, even the non-existent ones.
2. Stay out of science. It’s expected that others will probe your work for flaws, if your work was posted publicly then the flaws will also be made public, and you should welcome it, as that’s how science works. Peer review is to keep junk papers from being published, but it also saves authors from making public their boneheaded mistakes, often because they’re too close to their work and haven’t sought sufficient outside review.
If you don’t want to make your work public because you’re afraid someone will find something wrong with it, you shouldn’t be a scientist in name, as you’re already not one in fact.
Alex the skeptic says:
This is all the usual annual pre-hyping for the climate-fest-orgy COP 18 being held at the global warming state of Qatar, the highest per-capita CO2 emitter.
All delegates will suffer from heat stroke, thus, what with the effect on their mental capacity and the 45C temperature they would anyway feel, the scammers will hope that the delegates would vote for keeping the AGW hypothesis and the trillions of dollars that come with it on life support.
Wonder if this means we can expect unusually cold weather in the Persian Gulf 🙂
Maybe next year they’ll try for the Republic of Ecuador without realising that altitude trumps latitude when it comes to the temperature in Quito…
No. Sea water is densest when coldest. Observe this ultra-briney ultra-cold Finger of Death:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82037540/
Shell fish and clams live in fresh water too… with pH down in the 5 ish and 4 ish ranges…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/clams-do-fine-in-acid-water/
So these folks found that when DEEP WATER that has been well away from CO2 for how many hundreds of years? is raised up it causes the same effect as when that deep water is, well, deep.
Sounds to me like it’s a function of the chemistry of the deep water, not the atmospheric influenced surface waters… Perhaps it is too deficient in carbonate ions for the shell fish to make shells? Adding CO2 to water can help form shells in aquarium environments…
AndyG55 said on November 26, 2012 at 10:26 pm:
umm.. pH is the negative log[H+]
It’s the same. pH = -log₁₀[H+] = log₁₀(1/[H+])
ex. -log₁₀(10^-3) = 3 = log₁₀(1/(10^-3))
Has anyone asked the oceans alarmists how much man made carbon dioxide they believe has dissolved in the seas to cause this? And then asked the atmospheres alarmists how much is in the atmosphere causing the warming? And then see if it adds up to our output?
I’m guessing it is, magically, in both places at the same time.
Also how do warming seas absorb more of a gas?
MattS commented on On noes! “Records of naked-eye sunspot observations in China go back to at least 28 BCE.”
Matt, instead of you making the Chinese liars – please; you personally count and tell us the number of sunspots will be tomorrow and tell us next day, please, please; let people judge your honesty!
For the rest of you interested in the truth:
1] they were blocking the sun with a cardboard and looking at the corona activity,/ sun-flares since the beginning of the last century. Unfortunately, the sun-flares where affecting where the earth will be in 6 months, minus 8 minutes = not a big deal.
2] in 95 discovered with a good filter that: the sun surface is not just red – year after filter was improved and was able to see what we can see now..
3] the shonks had phony ”GLOBAL” temp charts, with ”precision in hundredth of a degree”, for distant past. Those ”GLOBAL temp charts look as seismographs = the biggest CON jobs – so they pined against those charts imaginary sunspots, to fit their con charts.. and BINGO – sunspots inserted; as ”double proof”
4] to cover up the original con: if some alluvial soil in Colorado canyon suggests extra rain = they were shamelessly declaring the WHOLE planet warmer – other deposit suggests less rainfall -> they declare: cooler planet by 0,5C. Even though, the canyon can’t say even about all of Colorado’s temperature. For the shonks was GLOBAL…?!
B] If some text said: 1678 was 12 bushels of grain per hectare in Yorkshire / England = they were declaring: it was warmer, the WHOLE planet, by 0,3C == next year didn’t rain – 11,5 bushels per acre = the WHOLE PLANET was colder! from Antarctic, Oceania, both Americs; because the locust damaged some crops (was no pesticide).. and so on. To justify the million lies -> they added up sunspots on the top of it. Climatology is THE oldest profession, not the other one; yes, both of those professions ask for money in advance – but the second oldest delivers the goods
For more evidences of their ”proxy lies” see here:: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
Upwelling is often due to winds blowing surface water away from a shore line. Therefore upwelling is due to weather patterns. There is little doubt that this can have a huge effect on fisheries. The waters off Peru can be practically devoid of fish, during a warm El Nino when upwelling is far less, however when the pattern shifts to La Nina and cold, nutrient-filled waters upwell, the fisheries boom. (I’ve never heard of anything disolving, however.)
I think this study is interesting, and may have some value, because it may suggest how changing weather patterns effect future fisheries. However the mention of CO2 is merely tacked-on to seek future funding. (There is likely a joke there, concerning “fishing for funding.” )
Are the BAS citing those dreadful experiments by Southampton University? CO2 was bubbled through sea water to alter the pH, which it failed to do, so HCl, hydrochloric acid, was introduced to alter the pH which it did and dissolved sea shells. Unfortunately for them ocean water does not contain HCl.
Has such damage seen in nature? Not to my knowledge though there are some parasitic worms that bore through mollusc shell to feed on the animal inside and this damage could be taken as caused by acidic sea water.
I thought this article was a spoof when I first read it. Then my BSometer went off scale.
Large parts of the ocean floor are anoxic, including Antarctica. In other words they are oxygen starved and relatively sulphide rich..If an ‘upwelling’ brings some of this material near to surface, the sulphides will oxidise forming sulphuric acid. Of course, as others have suggested here, there could be some volcanic vents causing the problem.
This is common sense 101.
Those guys with their AGW are so last year. Here’s the latest defence (defense) against today’s doom – Bovine Global Warming http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/11/wireless-network-of-cows-to-ke.html
andrewmharding says:
November 26, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Anthony, could we please have an archive on WUWT devoted to the most crazy claims of AGW “scientists”? There could be an annual prize for the most bizarre piece of “research” based on votes by WUWT readers.
_________________________________
Or Ric Werme could add that category to a Guide to WUWT and it could be featured once a year for voting.
kadaka: You say that like mass extinctions are a bad thing. Are you upset at existing? Is it disappointing that they lead to the rise of the mammals and thus subsequently humans?
Huh? What creature are you rooting for after humans go extinct? I agree that the mass die offs of the past led to us, but I don’t favor us being part of the next.
kadaka: The expected global temperature increases are hardly that great, humans and the other species have faced greater during just this interglacial.
The problem isn’t where we are, it’s where we are going that is worrying.
kadaka: Besides, my researching shows the “Big Five” mass extinctions of the past 500 million years are attributable as given in this piece, some combination of massive volcanism, asteroid/comet impact, and/or global cooling. Global warming, like this mild stuff we have now? Nah.
Two points from your “researching”:
1. Most creatures can not adapt to major changes in the environment when they are sudden.
2. Rapid cooling changes would be expected to affect life just as severely as rapid heating.
-t
ferd berple says:
November 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm
“The only way this can happen is to deny the poor of the world the benefits that the likes of Al Gore and Jim Hansen enjoy today.”
Yes, because that is the true agenda of elitists. As we all know, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.
Mughal says:
November 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm
….It’s bloody obvious that CO2 emissions will change the pH of the ocean. How can anyone dispute that?….
_____________________________________
NO, It is not bloody obvious
At least not to a chemist.
Ever hear of a BUFFERED Solution? HMMmm – I thought not. Your ignorance is showing and your lack of education.
Here – educate yourself – PDF
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm
…..Evolution can work far more faster than you expect….
____________________________
Yes, Just ask Dr. Horton “Beep” Hobbs. Dump normal crayfish in a cave pool and watch how fast they turn into blind crayfish.
higley7 @ November 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm:
Jeez, you flunk my sophomore high school chemistry quiz. Acidification at any pH involved decreasing the pH value, which is the =log[H+]. Acidifying means INCREASING the [H+]!!!!!!!
________________________________
My lord is this guy a high school chemistry teacher? No wonder I could not find a satisfactory lab tech for my lab who was under the age of 35!
Dude, it is called neutralizing whether you are adding a base to an acid to bring it toward a pH of 7 or adding an acid to bring a base toward a pH of 7.
Acidification is an inflammatory word used by activists not chemists.
@stefanthedenier,
Your entire reply to me is a non sequitur. I made no claim linking sunspots to climate. I merely cited evidence of written historical records that people were observing and counting sunspots hundreds of years ago.
There is no evidence at your link showing or for that matter even claiming that these historical records are recent forgeries.
Leif Svalgaard is a frequent commenter here on solar issues. He is a published solar scientist. He is also very critical of those who try to show a link between solar activity and climate.
http://www.leif.org/research/
Here is something from Leif that shows some of the history in counting sunspots.
http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Calibration.pdf
There is nothing dishonest here and nothing linking sunspots to climate. Just evidence that people have been counting sunspots systematically long before the global warming scare came along and that your claim that we didn’t even know that sunspots existed until the mid 1990s is preposterous.
“The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, a result of human activities.”
Statements like this really get on my nerves. Given that humans contribute only 3 percent of the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, should this statement not say “The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, for which human activities are 3 percent responsible”?
trafamadore says:
November 26, 2012 at 9:20 pm
…Not usually. Usually, extinction is the name of the game. Sorry. All of the great changes in global temperatures have resulted in mass extinctions….
_____________________________
Since when has Nature ever been considered benign? Seems the ‘Bambi Syndrone’ is at work again. Evolution works that way. Conditions change and the hardiest individuals/species survive to breed. The entire history of life on earth has been based on extinction of species that could not hack changing conditions. Change happens, change is always going to happen, nothing stands still – That is life get over it.
Oh and those ‘great changes in global temperatures’ ??? Dr. Nir Shaviv (Physics) thinks (backed by observations) there is a connection between Ice Age Epochs and Milky Way Spiral Arm Passages
Here is a peer-reviewed paper on the same subject:
stefanthedenier says:
November 27, 2012 at 2:06 am
Matt, instead of you making the Chinese liar….
________________________________
You make absolutely no sense.
Chad at 121126 6:46PM wrote:
“A relative of mine is a senior chemist at a large corporation, and he informed me that he and his colleagues almost always prefer to use pH numbers when attempting to modify a solution to a higher or lower pH. Just curious – are you saying that they are a minority? Thanks.”
Chad:
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Certainly, providing numbers is always quantitatively stipulated, viz. I wish to change the pH of the buffer from 7.7 to 7.3. But, also chemists speak in qualitative terms, viz. “Yeah, I’m working on making this buffer slightly more acidic.” Note the double meaning here by intention: the buffer is alkaline (at 25-deg C anyway) at both pH’s, but the process is to make the buffer more acidic (or less alkaline if you prefer) than it was.
If I’m misconstruing your question, please advise. PY
coke2010 says:
November 27, 2012 at 5:47 am
“The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, a result of human activities.”
Statements like this really get on my nerves. Given that humans contribute only 3 percent of the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, should this statement not say “The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, for which human activities are 3 percent responsible”?
===================================================================
But if they can’t/don’t attribute what Ma Gaia is doing to human activity then they have no reason to control human activity.
That’s the goal. CAGW is the (current) lever.
Poor Yorek says:
November 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm
“3. The pH scale is temperature dependent. At physiological temperatures, neutral pH ~ 6.7, whereas at, say, 10-deg C, neutral pH ~ 7.3 or so. This shift is mediated primarily on the endothermic nature of the H2O + H2O = H3O^1+ + OH^1- reaction. Thus, pH = 7.0 can be itself “acidic,” neutral, or “alkaline,” depending on the temperature.
4. Someone above wrote that “This surely means corrosiveness can be described with a parabola.” Whilst there is some degree of truth to this, I submit that the problem is with what we mean by corrosive: the term is descriptive rather than precise. Substances quite indifferent to alkaline conditions are readily attacked under acidic conditions and vice versa. For that matter, not even all acids are equally corrosive as, for example, nitric acid is a much more powerful oxidizing agent than hydrochloric or sulfuric (at similar concentrations) and, thus, much more “destructive” towards metal parts.”
Thanks. The paragraphs above and your preceding explanations were helpful and I can see the problem of relativity with acids, alkaline and temperature. However it is still the case that PH8 is not acidic. If substances can be indifferent to alkaline conditions then when they are within the Alkaline part of the PH scale, even at 10 C, they cannot be affected by acidity even if the PH direction is towards acidic. The conditions have to be acidic not ‘heading in that direction’.
Also you say: “it is quite standard and correct to refer to pH = 7.8 as being acidic relative to pH = 8.0 (or pH = 5.8 as being alkaline relative to pH = 5.5). ”
This sounds as if those accustomed to working with the PH scale have adopted a language or custom that attempts to describe the relationship between more than one PH. But considering the scale is only 14 units long it’s not difficult to work out which direction it’s going and which side of the scale its on, which means PH 5.8 is not alkaline. While describing things becoming acidic or alkaline, when they are in the other part of the scale, might be useful to the chemist I’m not sure those outside chemistry interpret reports that ‘the oceans are becoming acidic’ in such a ‘practical’ way.
Some clarification about marine carbonate chemistry:
Stability of solid carbonates in seawater depends on a property called the “saturation state”, of in the case of pteropods, the aragonite saturation state. This is simply the ratio of calcium and carbonate ions in water to aragonite. So if the ratio is greater than 1, the there are more calcium and carbonate ions in sea water and aragonite won’t dissolve. If the ratio is less than 1, aragonite will not dissolve. In most parts of the surface ocean, aragonite saturation states are on average between 3-5.
How does this relate to pH?
Dissolved carbon in the ocean comes in three flavors: aqueous CO2, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. The relative concentrations of each species, or the “equilibrium” is very sensitive to pH. Thus, a small change in pH (e.g 0.1) can significantly decrease the carbonate ion concentration in seawater. Less carbonate ions means the aragonite saturation state decreases, and as such aragonite starts to dissolve. Seawater doesn’t need to become “acidic” on the pH scale in order for this to happen.
A decrease in pH of 0.1 does have significant ramifications …
From anon298 on November 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm (bold added):
So if the ratio is greater than 1, the there are more calcium and carbonate ions in sea water and aragonite won’t dissolve. If the ratio is less than 1, aragonite will not dissolve.
Which leaves the magical case of the ratio being perfectly equal to 1 as where aragonite might dissolve, but it seems unlikely.
@kadaka
I should have proof read that. When the saturation state is above 1, aragonite is stable. When the saturation state is equal to or below 1, aragonite will start dissolving as observed in the article.
anon298 says:
November 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Some clarification about marine carbonate chemistry:
“The relative concentrations of each species, or the “equilibrium” is very sensitive to pH. Thus, a small change in pH (e.g 0.1) can significantly decrease the carbonate ion concentration in seawater.”
I am led to believe the PH scale is logarithmic so a change of PH0.1 should have differing significance depending on how far from PH7 that change is. The closer to PH7 the less the significance. Is my understanding wrong?
Stephen Skinner wrote: “If substances can be indifferent to alkaline conditions then when they are within the Alkaline part of the PH scale, even at 10 C, they cannot be affected by acidity …”
This is not quite right for two reasons, Firstly, at a pH = 8.0, for example, the [H3O^1+] = 10^-8, and the [OH^1-] = 10^-6 (at 25-deg C). So strictly speaking, there are acidic species in aqueous solution albeit now in lower proportion to the alkaline hydroxide anion compared to neutral conditions (where both concentrations are 10^-7). Also, as I pointed out in part 1 of my post (not quoted) the solubility of a species such as Fe(OH)2 is 100x greater at, say, pH = 8 than at pH = 9: the solubility is most certainly affected by the “shift to a more acidic pH” and, in fact, the relative change in solubility is the same for pH = 7 to pH = 6. So the real issue is this: at what pH does the solubility of the material under consideration become appreciable or significant? It might be that a change in pH from 9 -> 8 makes the solubility change from 10^-8 molar to 10^-6 molar which might be effectively insignificant. But a change from 10^-4 molar to 10^-2 molar might lead to significant degradation (these values are not specific to my earlier Fe(OH)2 example, I’m just using some convenient ranges for illustrative purposes). Another example is in chelation therapy: chelates might bind their metals to a very high degree, yet not so much as to reduce the metal below its LD50 value in vivo. One of the most important things I teach my students is to appreciate when a given number is “big” or when it is “small” based on the context.
You also wrote: “But considering the scale is only 14 units long.” This is a common misconception. It SEEMS that way given Kw = 1.0E-14 for water at 25-deg C, but consider this: 10M (ten molar) HCl => 10.0 M H3O^1+ whose pH would then be -1.0 (yes, negative pH’s are possible). Ditto 10.0 M NaOH has a pH =15. Of course, solutions become increasingly non-ideal at these higher concentrations, so just to keep things simple I’m ignoring such matters for discussion here.
Hope this clarifies some of your points or questions, Stephen.
Here’s a very interesting comment on the New Scientist write-up:
So they overdosed the snails and de-strapolated? Gude Gad!
Poor Yorek, thank you for that explanation. I can see that as long as the chemists know to what the reference pertains, all is fine.
@Stephen Skinner
Yes, the pH change is small. BUT, the resulting change in carbonate ion concentration is significant. That is key. Dissolution of pteropod shells is not occurring because the pH of the ocean is dropping below neutral, but rather because that small decrease in pH is driving a large change in the aragonite saturation state. The saturation state is what determines the stability of a carbonate in seawater.
Here is graph that illustrates how carbonate ion concentration changes with pH: http://bit.ly/WY0Rl6. Notice how steep the carbonate ion slope is around surface ocean pH? Small change in pH = substantial change in carbonate ion concentration. Enough to cause dissolution.
Source of graph and more information on marine carbonate chemistry: http://bit.ly/TpCsPN
trafamadore says:
November 27, 2012 at 4:28 am
Two points from your “researching”:
1. Most creatures can not adapt to major changes in the environment when they are sudden.
2. Rapid cooling changes would be expected to affect life just as severely as rapid heating.
======================================================
Ants have twice the biomass of humans on this planet. While I applaud the inclusion of rapid cooling, creatures that have been around awhile have passed many tests. Humans are toddlers of the Pleistocene. While I believe in our potential, Neandertals had larger brains and they are extinct. Let’s not join them by failing to recognize that there are far greater forces at play than carbon dioxide.
Thanks Pooor Yorek and anon298. I understand most of your explanations but not the more technical. The graph is very useful and I need to understand further.
“The expedition ship: The RRS James Clark Ross underway in Antarctica”.
Ha ! I have been onboard that vessel !
Poor Yorek,
I calculate that if all 1.1 trillion tonnes of aggregate human CO2 were dissolved in a volume of distilled water representing the mixed layer of the ocean (350m km^3) the resulting molar solution would be 2.35×10^-9 and the resulting pH would drop from 7 to 6.95. The arm waving media consistently claims that humans have caused a .1 decrease in ocean pH, twice what I see as an absolute upper limit to human liability.
The water currently upwelling around Antarctica likely comes from well below the mixed layer from water equilibraded with CO2 in downwelling zones in about AD 1012. Blame the Vikings.The water endured a millenium of carbonate raining from above at enormous pressure.
Certainly there parts of distrubution curves of many ocean chemicals that are highly leveraged by pH. The clades in question have seen it all before.
^
Gymnosperm,
Not quite sure why I am the specific addressee of your post: my purpose in commenting above was to clarify some “loose language” and establish some general chemistry concepts that underlay much of the discussion. I thought I made it clear that I was not commenting at all, in defense or attack, on the paper itself: I do not presume to be sufficiently well read on the presumably complex mechanisms affecting equilibrium and non-equilibrium pH in ocean waters. That being said, I am reasonably expert in general acid-base and solubility-product type matters (e.g. the carbonate buffer system) and so I kept my comments pointed towards more general chemical matters.
anon298 says: ”A decrease in pH of 0.1 does have significant ramifications” CON!!!
Fellas, you are playing too much with your little water-pistols – to prevent you of getting blind; here are some real facts / important facts”::::::
pH in the sea varies between 7-pH9 / average 8,3pH. Therefore 0,1 changes on different places, every day, and much more!!!
2] carbonic acid is not even acidic – your darker colour blood in your vines is darker, because is saturated with CO2 – carrying it to your lungs, to let it out.
3]Eno, Dexal, Ural medications are BI-CARBONS – used as ”ANTACIDS”!!!
4]Amazon river, Mekong, Congo river drain every year from the ”rainforests” billions of tons of strong / real acidity as sulfuric acid, nitric acids +++ you don’t like acidity in the sea… sharpen your chainsaws!
5] increase in human population -> lots of chlorine, bleach and products with bleach in it ends up into the sea every day. bleach is pH13!!!
6] Lots of magnesium, potassium, salts, ash is getting washed into the sea from the hills, every day; they are all highly alkaline = needs some acidity, to counteract the real alkaline substances, forget CO2, IDIOTS!!!
7] higher alkalinity than normal, does bigger damages, than lower
8] all the CO2 from fossil fuel from 17 planets equal to earth; will not make the sea acidic!
9] from 8,3pH, going down to 7,1pH, is NOT becoming acidic!!! same as: going from Florida to New York = you are NOT gone into Canada!!!
10] what nobody takes into account is: pH7, as neutral – is NOT harming anything, BUT: at pH7, lots of primitive nusties start to grow in the water!!! When in the distant past; water was pH7 + oxygen depleted -they evolved, they like it that way. Water with pH7, after short time becomes sick water for all the modern critter – rainwater is pH7, leave it in the yard for few weeks = will see lots of primitive goodies growing in, that would make every modern fish sick / dead. Water in the sea is alkaline – most of the rivers are acidic; and should be that way. b] some soils in Canada, Australia are very alkaline = washes lots of extra alkalinity into the sea.
11] this supposed to be a Skeptic’s blog – debating that CO2 making the sea acidic = you are dignifying the Warmist lies = therefore: you are a Fake Skeptics; Warmist in-bedded as ”Fake Skeptics”!!! Stop playing with your little water pistols, it may fall-off!!! :::, Seawater is getting too alkaline, thanks to human overpopulation and artificial fire started bushfires. get some real truth:: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/seawater-is-getting-too-alkaline/
Gail Combs says:November 27, 2012 at 6:17 am
”stefanthedenier You make absolutely no sense.”
When the truth doesn’t make sense for you; tells a lot about you: here is more truth:1: you burn your eyes twice as fast from telescope, than when looking direct at the sun. 2: you can get from the leading Warmist and the media: ”the date and company that made the filter in 2005-6, to see sunspots. 3: if you look 7-8 seconds at the sun – you will not see the sunspots there; but will see sunspots even in a dark room, for a day – and will never see anything else, for the rest of your life.
People that forged / falsified ”sun’s activity” to feet the mountains of phony past GLOBAL warmings -> pressed against those phony GLOBAL temp charts (which look as seismographs) will be the first to be jailed. Not one of you sods want to demonstrate how they were collecting data from sun’s activity for the past 1000years. It takes to look 7-8 minutes at the sun; to get permanent blindness. The CON who did it; will have to demonstrate, under oath – or three jail therms, minimum