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.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (19:10:28) :
@ur momisugly E.M.Smith (15:59:34)
YOU JUST CAN’T WIN…
Fish farming killing Israel’s coral reefs
How could you! Now I’m going to be stuck choosing between the rubber chicken and the mad cow burger 😉
I did find it interesting that the article stated that nitrate was a real killer for coral and they only grew well when the ocean was strongly depleted in it. That’s an addition to the discussion.
Maybe that’s a big clue right there… Since both sewage and agricultural runoff are very heavy in nitrogen. I’m all for sewage plants and proper fertilization methods (and retention ponds for farm runoff… you can make very nice prawn and tilapia farms in nitrogen rich ag runoff. Algae blooms feet the bugs that feed the food … er, fish.. 😉
It would be interesting to see a map of coral die off vs. nitrogen runoff…
J. Peden:
You are wrong.
You fail to understand what RC, I, and others have been saying. It IS counterintuitive upon first glance. Like I said, I had trouble with it at first. So think of it this way:
How do you deplete CO3(-2) from the ocean in this equation? Basically, add H+.
H+ & CO3(-2) HCO3(-1)
What is the whole equation of CO2 addition?
H2CO3 ← K1 → H+ & HCO3(-) ← K2 → 2H+ & CO3(–2)
Note that 2 H+ atoms can be generated from this reaction. Do you need 2 H+ with CO3(-2) to generate the back reaction to HCO3-? No, you only need one:
H+ & CO3(-2) HCO3(-1). So there is an “extra” H+. So now you have to consider this: what is more favorable: the H+ reacting with HCO3- to form the highly unstable H2CO3, or H+ reacting with another/different CO3(-2) to form another HCO3(-)?
So what is the probability that this “extra” H+ will stably bind with HCO3(-1) to regenerate H2CO3? Not very high. What is the probability that this “extra” H+ will bind with CO3(-2)
Secondly, do you really think such a major and elementary flaw would be found in a peer reviewed paper?
Glenn (19:14:37) :
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.
You are welcome. BTW, the Dad knew about the effect and was, er, prepared (though they had to improvise part of the ‘stuff’… plastic bag and bit of plastic tubing from part of the boat, I think it was).
I’d also heard a story of an American Indian who survived by soaking in salt water pools, but can not verify it (nor can I tell if it was via, er, colonal intrusion or just reduced evaporation, or not …)
Sidebar: I’m abandoning the ‘what is is’ part of this thread. There is no hope…
Jeez,
Read through all your references, and appreciate the effort. But you don’t seem to understand, the problem is not with the definition of acidification, the problem is with the correct application of that definition. Acidification *is* the process of turning a base into an acid. From what I can gather from your references, they all refer to that process – going from a base to an acid. But going from say 8.2 to 8.1 does not represent a process of going from a base to an acid. If there is a process by which an acidic ph is achieved, then it will have been indeed an “acidification”.
Perhaps I missed something in those refs that did refer to acidification as for example adding an amount of acid to a base but not enough to cause the end result to be an acid. That’s what I asked for earlier.
Some of your refs use the definition of acidification to refer to an acid substance becoming even more acidic. However, that is somewhat different than using the word to mean a base moving closer to acid but not reaching an acidic state.
Alan Wilkinson & J. Peden:
If you don’t believe me, e-mail a chemistry professor. It makes sense once you think about it.
Let’s say you have 1 molecule of H2CO3, and an additional molecule of CO3(-2).
What is the resulting major reaction for these three molecules?
H2CO3 is HIGHLY unstable when pH is neutral, right?
HCO3(-1) is the dominant form right? So you have HCO3(-1) & H(+), correct?
So what is this H+ doing? If it is just in solution, then pH lowers, right? ([H+] increasing). If it is reacting, what can it react with?
Either HCO3(-1) to form H2CO3 (highly unlikely at such a high pH) OR our “extra” molecule of CO3(-2) to form HCO3(-1). Which reaction will it most likely favor in near neutral pH? The second reaction is much more likely. Thus, [CO3(-2)] is dropping.
@ur momisugly Marcus (19:06:35)
“no one seems to care that I found a medical reference where alkalinization was used for an acidic solution.”
Absolutely right! I couldn’t care less. I refuse to make myself crazy over the many misued terms in the literature. Just because they use a word incorrectly doesn’t mean I have to.
As to your chemical calculations, …I feel your instructor’s pain.
________________________________________________________________
@ur momisuglySmokey
Freemon Dyson, a real scientist.
Frankly, I think that acidification debate is stupid. I think the description is fine: I associate lowering of pH, even if it remains above 7, to be acidification. To me, a lower pH = more acidic. pH just stands for [H+] in a solution.
@jeez (19:23:25) :
“No–get specific about substantive items.”
The point is that you can’t if the terms you use to describe them are as slippery as a Clinton dodging a question about sexual impropriety You can’t “get specific” using words that havek no specific meaning.
Robert S (18:55:32) :
“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.”
That makes no sense. The process *of going from base to acid* does actually mean it has to become acid. If it doesn’t, there is no process.
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.”
Acidifying means the same thing as acidification, the process of going from base to acid. You may believe the oceans are going to become acid, but they haven’t got there yet, and going from 8.2 to 8.1 or whatever isn’t acidification or acidifying, and isn’t evidence that the oceans will at some point go lower than 7.
I’m astounded that you regard a change in base toward acid as acidification, but reject that same event as “more acidic”. They both make as much sense or nonsense, depending on your POV.
Oh, and the 2003 Nature article did not “coin” the word acidification–it has been in use for a good 30 years.
I meant of course the term “ocean acidification”.
@jeez (20:12:18) : (and others in the ”what is is tea party”)
FWIW, I’m not hung up on the OED as god, nor do I really care if a word changes usage over time (they all most all do); but I do care that we have a basis of shared understanding; from whatever common source.
It was only with this thread & discussion that I realized the claim made was only that the pH was going to be 8.something and not 6-7.0 and had a combined reaction of “Oh, that’s not a problem” mixed with “Wait, they said what??” and I think that does matter, that it is substance. It was for me.
You cited many folks with a particular usage. Fine. The argot is gaining currency. But does the ‘average man’ know this? I think that is the point…
So y’all want to use it to mean something else from the OED: I just put a #DEFINE in my head for this context. I’d be a bit happier with a dictionary of some repute so I could simply change my global understanding, but such is life.
Heck, every programmer I’ve run into knew what “crufty” meant and it startled the heck out of me to find out it was jargon…. and don’t get me started on trying to talk with my British and Irish relatives (speaking of people separated by a common language…) Fair dinkum. But just remember that in The Empire it means something quite different when they ask if you “Want to be knocked up in the morning?” than it does in America (The first is “Do you want a wake up call?”…) So I do think words matter…
I’m off to tip a cuppa, shake hands with me wife’s best friend, and roust the main squeeze for bit ‘o randy andy…
J Lo (21:08:43) :
“Frankly, I think that acidification debate is stupid. I think the description is fine: I associate lowering of pH, even if it remains above 7, to be acidification. To me, a lower pH = more acidic. pH just stands for [H+] in a solution.”
Perhaps you are right. As I said at the first, I don’t retain much chemisty.
But your view is in conflict with other poster’s views. Maybe they are stupid and you are smart.
E.M.Smith (21:34:49) : I’m off to tip a cuppa, shake hands with me wife’s best friend, and roust the main squeeze for bit ‘o randy andy…
Oh, and in addition to my cup of herb tea, visit to the washroom, and kissing my spouse good night, I’ll be putting my moggy out.
(Moggy is what I was raised with as the term for the ally cat that adopted our living room as his home…)
Dang it… just had to look back…
J Lo (20:45:28) :
Basically, add H+.
That’s a joke right? Isn’t it? You sure? 😉
FWIW, last time I looked adding enough H+ to CO2 solution drove the CO2 out of solution, but it’s been a while and maybe I’ve forgotten something…
Interesting how some here are attempting to hijack the discussion.
So far, none of the naysayers have offered any explanation of how shellfish could have existed at 4,000 PPM atmospheric CO2, offered any explanation for the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature, or offered any raw data showing that ocean pH is dropping.
And no, the ocean is not acid as the BBC headline stated. Please read the article again – carefully this time.
J Lo (20:58:59)
“H2CO3 is HIGHLY unstable when pH is neutral, right?
HCO3(-1) is the dominant form right? So you have HCO3(-1) & H(+), correct?
So what is this H+ doing?”
If you have a neutral solution in which there is H2CO3, it will contain about 20 percent of the Carbon, while the HC03- will contain about 80%. There won’t be any CO3–. Now, at neutral pH you have no excess H+ ions, so your assumption that there are is wrong. What will be the Cation that will balance the Anions, if not H+? The answer is that you can’t have a neutral solution of those ions without a buffer, so you would have some monovalent metal like Na+, or K+ from the buffer to fill in for the H+. The H+ reacts with whatever the Anion of the Buffer is, effectively removing it.
@E.M.Smith (21:53:14) : “adding enough H+ to CO2 solution drove the CO2 out of solution”
That’s correct.
J Lo, I don’t need to email a chemistry professor. I have a PhD in physical organic chemistry specialising in reaction mechanisms and rates.
When you add CO2 to water some of it becomes H2CO3, some of it becomes bicarbonate ions and some of it becomes carbonate ions. End of Story. There is more carbonate in the water than before you started. Irrevocably, undeniably and without question.
Confusing yourself hopelessly as you and RC and others have done above makes no difference. The aqueous equilibria don’t care. They continue to do what they’re good at – distributing CO2 between the various states according to the relative energy levels of those states.
More probably the entire usage issue is moot in light of the term’s exploitation by media scarifiers. The lay person conjures up images of acidified oceans in which a big toe will burn, waft smoke, and blacken to a spongy pulp.
As oceans become slightly less alkaline it behooves the AGW clan to shriek about acid. A simple refutation for the lay person – a more appropriate and ACCURATE definition is “becoming less alkaline.” I am lay. I know how my ignorant fellows think. Therefor the pragmatic skeptic is urged to adopt nomenclature easily absorbed by the general public. It is they who will phone the Congress to stop the madness.
“Becoming less alkaline,” is the ticket. Followed quickly with some geologic references to the relative stability of ocean pH across centennial/relevant time. AGWs think in extreme visuals, e.g. “sea level rise,” “ice melt,” “species extinction,” etc. The effective counter is moderate language – realistically demonstrating the minority of occurrence and magnitude, e.g. “CO2, a trace gas making up less than 4 hundredths of one percent of Earth’s atmosphere.”
J Lo:
If you don’t believe me, e-mail a chemistry professor. It makes sense once you think about it.
J Lo, the constituents and interactions you are “thinking about” are completely contained in the equations, which show what happens. They do the “thinking” for you. That’s why they exist.
CO3 does not do anything more “logical” with H just because you think it should, that is, in defiance of the dynamic equilibria shown by the equations. Or if it does, show the equations which say that adding CO2 on the left will not result in an increase in CO3 on the right – as well as an increase in H.
It is stupid because it is not important.
You can associate acidification with changing pH from >7 to <7, but honestly, that has, as far as I know, there is really NO scientific basis for associating it this way. When the pH lowers, [H+] concentrations increase and [OH-] levels decrease. The only thing that is really significant at pH seven is that [OH-] = [H+], and that physiologically isn’t particularly important at all.
This is like arguing that there should be a special term for when you subtract one number from another and get a negative number. Yes, you could make up a term, but it really doesn’t mean anything in the big picture.
For all I care, we can call it "pH lowerification." Acidification is correct enough. Its calling a spade a spade.
E.M.Smith:
Basically, add H+.
That’s a joke right? Isn’t it? You sure? 😉
Well, it wasn’t intentionally a joke, but after I was editing my post I was like “huh, I wonder if anyone will get this.”
I hope you understood my argument about how CO2 removes CO3(-2) from solution.
Towards your earlier comments about the aquarium keeper, it makes perfect sense that more CO2 dissolved in water could increase the amount of CO3(-2) in the ocean water. All you would have to do is adjust the final pH with a base like NaOH to drive the reaction to the right HCO3(-1) H+ & CO3(-2), thus “removing” free H+ atoms.
But strict CO2 addition in the illustration I gave, ceteris paribus, will lower [CO3(-2)]. The chemistry makes sense.
J Lo, you flunk Chem 101 for sure. Come back when you’ve earned a pass mark.
Alan Wilkinson:
No offense, but your explanation is not one at all. In a solution with no CO3[-2], you would be correct. Adding CO2 to only H20 would create [CO3(-2)] because there was none to begin with. But if you have an initial concentration of [CO3(-2)], which there is in the ocean, you need to think about how the H+ generated by the dissociation of H2CO3 -> H+ & HCO3(-1) affects the reaction of excess [CO3(-2)] & H+ -> HCO3(-1)
Email your damn former thesis adviser and have him explain it to you. Then have him take away your PhD. Seriously though, think about it very carefully. Like I said, it is counterintuitive until you think about it very carefully.
Steven Goddard (13:51:58) :
Bill D,
Can you point us to some measured ocean pH data from the last 20 years? Monterey Bay does not support the contention that pH is declining. Is there other raw data which does? In order to see a 150% increase in acidity over the remainder of the century (as the IPCC has reportedly claimed,) we would need to see greater than 15% increase per decade.
So an decrease of 0.2 in pH over the next 90 years, ~0.02/decade.
Simon Evans (16:54:23) :
So this is the best some of you have got? You wish to challenge the definition of ‘acidification’? Do you really wonder why so many would be inclined to dismiss your actions as nothing more than propagandising after that? Truly, very deeply feeble and pathetic, if that is what you choose to emphasise in your commentary! Call it de-alkalinasation if you prefer, I couldn’t care less! For goodness sakes, try to talk about the science rather than pursuing these silly point-scoring ventures – you just make yourselves seem ridiculous and petty (which does rather suit my POV, I have to say – by all means make yourselves seem ridiculous and petty!).”
Nice little rant Simon. Forgot your blood pressure pills today?