The world’s marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.
The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as “the other CO2 problem”, could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.
This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)
Perhaps corals are not so tough as they used to be? In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving. Another drop in pH of 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast. The corals might even survive a rise in ocean temperatures of half a degree, since they flourished at times when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher than the present.
Interesting…
Bruce Cobb (12:05:51):
So, if you cool water down the process would be called freezing, or if you warm it, boiling? Or, when I heat my house to keep the vicious arctic cold away, I am actually burning it?
Why do you think the definition of one word would apply to all other words as well? Since when is that standard practice in the english language?
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (13:08:15):
Wrong. Adding acid to a buffer above pH 7 is called “TITRATION,” not “acidification.” If you stop at 7, you have “neutralized” the solution, not “acidified” it. It is only “acidified” once you bring the pH below 7.
I’m sorry, but you don’t understand what titration means. Nor acidification. There are many good undergraduate texts on the subject out there. I suggest you take a look.
E.M.Smith (15:10:14) :
Will the OED do?
Sure. The first definition:
“The act or process of acidifying: Conversion into an acid.”
Like I have been saying, acidification is the process. No, it does not actually have to become acidic. Yes, it may be confusing to the general public.
Glenn (16:03:31) :
Or maybe you will claim that “becoming acidic” is the same thing as “more acidic”?
Nope. I don’t believe the ocean is becoming more acidic, but it is acidifying. I believe the 2003 article to be wrong in that respect.
Oh, and the 2003 Nature article did not “coin” the word acidification–it has been in use for a good 30 years.
“This is simple inorganic chemistry 101. You simply can’t get less of the right side by adding more of the left side.”
Darn. I knew all those extra semesters of inorganic chemistry I took while getting my chemistry major would make me forget the basics!
Actually, simple thought experiment:
You have one atom of Ca++ and one molecule of CO3–.
Now we add one molecule of H2O and one molecule of CO2.
CO2 + H2O H2CO3.
H2CO3 HCO3- + H+
H+ + Ca++ + CO3– HCO3- + Ca++
Sum all the individual reactions:
CO2 + H2O + Ca++ + CO3– 2HCO3- + Ca++
Huh. Look at that. I add H2O and CO2 and I get less CO3–. Perhaps you should retake your inorganic 101.
Going back to the acidification: no one seems to care that I found a medical reference where alkalinization was used for an acidic solution.
“Alkalinization of the urine with potassium citrate to a pH of 6.5 to 7 is recommended”
Here’s another one:
“We also demonstrated that acrosomal antigens detected by monoclonal antibodies MN7 and MC41 did not dissolve following the acrosome reaction in pH 5.3 media, but dissolved at pH 6.2. These data suggest that acrosomal alkalinization during incubation conducive for sperm capacitation may function to alter acrosomal contents and prepare them for release during the acrosome reaction.”
On the acidification side, how about: “Anoxia induced a cytoplasmic acidification from pH 7.6 (aerobic) to 7.4 as measured by 31P-NMR”
or “In the normal Krebs-Ringer solution of pH 7.4, lidocaine significantly reduced these relaxations in a concentration-dependent fashion. Alkalinization of pH 7.6 augmented the inhibitory effect of lidocaine on these relaxations, whereas acidification of pH 7.2 substantially abolished this effect.”
(all of the above sentences can be found by google if you want the original sources)
I _think_ that 7.2 and 7.4 are both greater than 7. Or have us AGWPers brainwashed the medical community too?
This is worse than a Monty Python skit.
Being in the skeptic camp, it is painful for me to watch. Can we please focus on substantial issues and not play linguistic games which make us look foolish?
An alternative to acidification would likely be debasing? Will that be better?
CO2 DEBASING THE OCEANS!
@ur momisugly E.M.Smith (15:59:34)
“(I like Orange Roughy, but try to order farmed fish when possible and pelagic species when not. Bottom trawls, especially around sea mounts, are horrific destroyers – but out of sight, out of mind…)”
YOU JUST CAN’T WIN…
Fish farming killing Israel’s coral reefs
The real “horrific [are there any other kind?>/em>] destroyers” are the Leftists who want to shut down human activity on the planet at the alter of “Mother Earth”
“In humans it is widely known that when lost at sea you will die if you drink salt water (due to the inability of your kidneys to excrete a stronger salt concentration than sea water). Less widely known is that you can take a ’sea water enema’ and survive. The colon has active transport of water (to solidify feces) and can extract fresh water from sea water. I know of at least one scandinavian family lost at sea that survived using this trick.”
I’ll have to remember to pick up an enema kit (or several, come to think about it) to throw in the boat for the next time out. Thanks for the life saving info! I can only wonder why that family happened to have the means in hand, so to speak, when the time came to add water, stir and.. hold that thought.
Eric,
Thanx for that link with all the frightening scare quotes. Do you honestly believe that article is unbiased? Do you believe there is no agenda apparent? There is so much wrong with that link it’s embarrassing.
Langdon might as well have been using a computer model to “project” his year 2050 concentrations of CO2. Note that the article quotes these scientists that coral is “dissolving” right before our eyes off the coast of Israel! Why would someone need to inject huge amounts of CO2, if today’s oceans are “dissolving” coral at today’s oceanic pH?
Those quotes are reminiscent of the scary global warming quotes originally pronounced by Al Gore and people from the IPCC: “20 meter sea level rises!” Eeek!! “Climate catastrophe!” Eeek!! “All arctic ice gone!” Eeek!! “Runaway global warming!” Eeeek!! “Polar bear extinction!” Eeeeeek!! [Note that every original IPCC scare has been debunked.]
Langdon’s experiment is surely rigged with an eye to getting grant money. Read all those scary quotes that the WaPo staff writer gets from Langdon and others, who are far from being impartial scientists. They are the reason that the inbred climate science community is so distrusted. A hobbyist who wants to see the effect of CO2 on coral growth out of curiosity is more impartial than a grant-seeking scientist with an AGW agenda and preconceived results, no?
Buried way down in the article is a peer-reviewed study refuting the “dissolving” coral situation. It’s interesting that twenty other scientists sucking at the public teat immediately monkey-piled on that one scientist who didn’t toe the globaloney line. But as Einstein retorted to 100 writers who’d said his theory of relativity was wrong: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
It’s doubtful that those 20 other nay-sayers did any CO2/coral experimenting on their own — and they apparently failed to write a refutation of the one scientific study that debunks the current CO2/coral meme: click
As Prof. Freeman Dyson said:
So who are you gonna believe, someone on the Heinz money bandwagon [the same Heinz foundation that shoveled hundreds of thousands of dollars into James Hansen’s pockets], or an experimenter who just wants to see how coral reacts to higher CO2 levels, with no thought of profiting financially?
Eric:
So explain why the following scientists found that more CO2 hurts corals
By this time in the course of my observation of AGW “science”, it’s the AGW “scientists” themselves who need to explain to me why I should believe a thing they say.
I started looking at AGW about 8 years ago and was literally stunned to progressively see and find out for myself that the ipcc, enc., is simply not doing science. They can’t even measure temperatures scientifically – h/t Anthony Watts – or handle data and “peer reviewed” articles correctly, but I was onto it well before that simply by looking at the TAR and how the ipcc has conducted itself therein, especially in the light of the Kyoto Protocols, which exclude countries containing 5 billion of the Earth’s 6.5 billion people from having to follow them. Some emergency, some impending distaster, eh!
And it only gets worse the more you look at it. For a recent example, check out the Nature Steig/Antarctic Warming fiasco being dissected by Steve McIntyre as we speak at Climate Audit.
Glenn (16:31:55) :A word can be used anyway a person wants, as long as the meaning is defined and adhered to.
Fine. Then I hereby define “Climate Change” as “I, the speaker, enter a contract to pay Anthony Watts $100 monthly.”
From here on out, all users of “Climate Change” can send their checks or paypal payments to Anthony…
Is there really no basis for shared understanding? Apparently not with the AGW true believers… Are there really no shared truths of fundamental science nor of language? … Then maybe it is time to abandon all hope for them…
@eez (19:08:09)
You don’t want us to “…play linguistic games which make us look foolish?”
In other “words,” Let’s talk substance, but just don’t get too specific.
Don’t you know that “words matter?” Even O’Bunko, knows that. Only a fool doesn’t care, and only a bunko artist tells them not to care (and a really talented bunko artist will twist meanings while at the same time insisting that “words have meaning”).
No–get specific about substantive items.
I thought that: “a word can be used anyway a person wants” line gave me a bit of an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ feeling… A quote from the other side of the looking glass that sounds painfully familiar:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them – particularly verbs: they’re the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
‘Would you tell me, please,’ said Alice, ‘what that means?’
Jeez, just read the OP, and the emphasis on certain words. I can’t help it if you think the subject is foolish. But the public reads “acid oceans”, and the scientists say “oceans are more acidic” and use “acidification” to implant the belief that the oceans will soon become acid baths, killing everything, unless we do something about that bad CO2 in the next two days.
Instead of “CO2 killing everything in the oceans”, how about “research finds declining ocean pH”?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/24/0810079105.abstract
Peden…
It really is sad that Mr. McIntyre can explain the study and the errors in the study better than the authors or the journals that accepted the error filled studies can. We live in a new world in which the prevaricators have seized the pursestrings. We pay them to further an agenda that will result in our own harm. We deserve what we get if we cannot fire these apathetic laggards who feed at the trough of our mercy.
I’m not going to be drawn into this debate. There is nothing scientifically incorrect about the use of the word in this context. That is the substantive point. The word may be tempting as a scary word, but it is being correctly used, so no victory may be won here even if alternatives are available.
Focus on the science, the data, and the methods, not the motivations. This is my last post on the subject. I suggest you reread my first on the subject.
Jeez,
I don’t understand why you think exposing propaganda isn’t substantive with regard to the subject of global warming and alarmism. Do you think it not productive to expose alarmism, whether it is psychological, political or under the guise of scientific knowledge?
jeez,
The BBC article which this story is about is titled “Acid oceans need urgent action.”
“Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.”
Simon Evans (16:54:23) :
So this is the best some of you have got? You wish to challenge the definition of ‘acidification’?
No, Simon, we are not challenging anything about the definition. We are trying to establish the true meaning of the word so that we can know:
1) What is actually being said.
2) What is actually happening.
3) What is correct about both.
4) What was said that is a lie.
If you wish to join the Alice in Wonderland folks and speak in words of your own devising, feel free, but please do us the courtesy of pointing out those Global Substitution parameters in a #DEFINE block at the top of each posting…
ok, one more post.
“Acid oceans need urgent action”
That is clearly incorrect usage and hyperbole, and therefore objectionable, but Ocean acidification as normally used is correct usage and not particularly objectionable.
Jeez,
You’ve only claimed that the word is used correctly, but you haven’t even attempted to back that up, nor have you made any attempt to refute my claims and research about the word being used incorrectly (or in a non-standard way) or the arguments for why it was coined and what the effect is of it’s use.
The substantive point is that the word was coined and used to mean that the oceans are becoming *more acidic*. And that *is* scientifically incorrect, since acidic in any dictionary or any use means an acid becoming stronger. Which by the way, was explained in the OP. I didn’t originate the OP, only expanded on the thesis with regard to AGW terminology which from where I sit, stands alone from other fields of science.
Re: envirochiq (18:08:53)
Envirochiq wrote
“Just so you know, there are ways to measure pH, temperature, carbon levels, etc. for earlier periods in time based on the soil cores, ice cores, fossil samples, and other pertinent geological data that is of that time.”
I don’t think so. There are ways to ESTIMATE various items of interest, but theses are not measurements, they are model output. In addition, the exact year (1751) may also be an estimate depending on the method of estimation. To make matters more interesting, different models may give different estimates for the same item of interest. There is a major difference in quality between a measurement and an estimate.
Jeez,
I looked on Google books and it seems that you are correct. The usage before 1950 seems to be “acidification” even if it has not moved below neutral. Also it seems that the term “Deacidification” has been used for slight movements in the opposite direction…
Mike
“Acid oceans need urgent action”
“That is clearly incorrect usage and hyperbole, and therefore objectionable, but Ocean acidification as normally used is correct usage and not particularly objectionable.”
Why is “acid oceans” any less objectionable then “the oceans are turning to acid”? Because the oceans haven’t got there yet, but they will?
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ego/GTerm?id=GO:0007035
http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&term=Acidification
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horticulture/acidification.pdf
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/3/347
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/6/569
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_acidification
http://www.apis.ac.uk/overview/issues/overview_acidification.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15681830
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/2/320
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/3/1128
Robert S (18:55:32) :
Sure. The first definition:
“The act or process of acidifying: Conversion into an acid.”
Like I have been saying, acidification is the process. No, it does not actually have to become acidic. Yes, it may be confusing to the general public.
It’s not the public that seems confused to me… They seem to know a sour taste in their mouth when they get one…
There was a reason I included all the chain of definitions… OK, you want to be walked through them all long hand. So what does ‘acidifying’ mean?
“Acidifying: Forming an acid: That combines so as to form an acid.”
So did your ‘process’ “form an acid”? No? Did it combine to “form an acid”? No? Then it isn’t acidifying and therefor not acidification.
Still confused? OK, I’ll do the nested substitutions for you.
Acidification.
The act or process of acidifying. <== substitute definition of acidification.
The act or process of forming an acid. <== substitute definition of acidifying.
Now try again: Exactly what acid was formed that allows you to say : "The act of process of forming {foo}"
[ Just to head off the inevitable: HCO3- or CO3– are not the definition of an acid. The H+ concentration is (thus the pH).
Dissolving HCl into dilute NaOH results in dilute salt solution, not dilute chloride acid ion solution… just to put a fine point on it. ]
Since the pH never got to 7.0, no acid. No acid, so no acidifying. No acidifying so no acidification.
I think it’s time for a tea party… Anyone know a hat maker? 8=}
J Lo, if you add some other acid (not CO2) to the ocean, yes, you will reduce carbonate ion levels. But if you add CO2 you won’t because you are adding carbonate ion with the acid.
Marcus, you certainly have forgotten the basics. Carbonate is an ion not a molecule. And your equations are nonsense because you have simply ignored the equilibria that apply.