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.
One of the arguments being propagated is that low mixing rates between shallow and deep water prevents pH buffering. However, we know that under normal Pacific Ocean conditions, cold deep water is continuously dragged to the east up the thermocline along the South American Coast, and is replaced by warm water sinking in the mid-Pacific. Under La Nina conditions this becomes even more exaggerated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation
We also know that during the Cretaceous, the Carbonate Compensation Depth was much shallower than at present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_Compensation_Depth
I am still waiting for someone to produce raw data showing that global ocean pH has been dropping.
Mauna Loa is not the measure of average CO2 *and all its isotopes* after the equation of sources minus sinks is completed. It is part of the equation but is not the number that comes after the “equal” sign. Some people post about it as if it is exactly that.
John Philips,
What you describe as “abrupt changes” in CO2 over the last 100 years are in fact less than 3% of the difference between Ordovician and modern concentrations. Given that the corals are not directly exposed to the atmosphere and that the only recent pH data anyone here has produced does not show acidification, you have not yet demonstrated any reason to believe that recent changes in atmospheric CO2 have had or should have any direct impact on the corals.
Garacka (07:28:48) :
5. Since I am the 1st to reveal this truth, I claim name ownership. Henceforth it will be known as “Garacka’s Rule”.
Garacka – Truly – I bathe in the sunlight of your wisdom.
(great post-comment).
pkatt (02:34:40) :
Bill D (10:29:28) :
pretty obvious you didn’t read the link:)
another quote:The tube worms, limpets and lobsters were scarce, the shrimp, crab and scale worms the most commonly seen animals. Also, two types of starfish (red and another white) and anemones (white) plus 4 or 5 types of fish were noted as were some shells of a possible snail ~1-2 cm in length, near the end of the dive. :End quote
I seem to remember crab, and shrimp being qualified as shell fish. I did not attack Steven G. I was simply pointing out that definitively saying corals and shellfish cannot survive in acidic conditions was inaccurate.
Crab and shrimp are crustaceans with chitin based exoskeletons not shellfish (molluscs) which form aragonite shells (which are described as ‘scarce’ in the quotation).
Alan Millar (05:34:24) :
So which of the alarmists are right?
Both – this subtle argument is very similar to the advanced theory that man made emissions of CO2 will in fact cause both Catastrophic Warming or Catastrophic Cooling…
With luck and much hard work chasing funding, you may become as wise as the wisest climate scientist and be able to fathom such mysterious ambiguities.
In this forum – I also raise my hand and second Alan Millar’s request.
Could some one please explain how warming oceans can absorb more CO2 such that they can become acidified, given that warming oceans have a well known property of outgassing CO2.
I look forward to a real attempt to address this question.
Richard S Courtney (05:59:06)
I’m not sure what’s to be gained by calling a scientifically well-characterized phenomenon (the ENSO-related contribution to interannual variability in the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration) someone’s “CO2-thermometer”. It isn’t a “thermometer” at all! The steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration relates rather well to our greenhouse gas emissions. It’s very obvious that during the early part of the Mauna Loa record when emissions were lowish, the rate of CO2 rise was smallish (0.7-0.9 ppm/yr). Now when our emissions are much larger, so the accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphre is larger (around 2 ppm/yr on average). One can go back to the high resolution Law Dome ice core data and see that one can follow this correlation back in time to the start of the industrial age. When our rate of emissions are low, so is the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; when emissions are high, so is the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It could hardly be simpler!
So our emissions result in a progressive rise in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Averaged over the short term the annual incremental increase correlates rather well with independent analysis of our emissions. Obviously there’s some interannual variability, so that occasionally the annual increment is higher than the trend would indicate, and sometimes its low. But we know why that is and don’t have to make a song and dance about it!
Really? Evidence please!
Richard, are you getting mixed up with the massive sinusoidal pattern of release and reuptake of CO2 due to the huge amount of seasonal plant growth and decay that is dominated by Northern Hemisphere growing cycles? Otherwise, the evidence indicates that there is a pretty progressive forcing of CO2 into the oceans, and that there isn’t that much of a variability in the interannual CO2 uptake. Not nearly as much as the variability that results from effects in the terrestrial environment.
e.g.:
Lee, K., et al. (1998), Low interannual variability in recent oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Nature, 396, 155–159.
Feely, R. A., et al. (2002), Seasonal and interannual variability of CO2 in the equatorial Pacific, Deep Sea Res., Part II, 49, 2443–2469
Le Quéré, C., et al. (2003), Two decades of ocean CO2 sink and variability, Tellus, B55(2), 649–656.
Not really Richard. Zeng et al (just one of many papers we could consider on this subject; citation below) addresses the origin of the interannual variation in the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The origin of the underlying rise in atmospheric CO2 is secondary to the study, although the authors note that interannual variations in the ocean uptake makes only a small contribution to interannual variation in atmspheric CO2, and it’s very well characterized that the oceans provide a strong sink for a significant proportion of our emissions (around 40% of our CO2 emissions go into the oceans so far, although this is likely to decrease in the future). This is directly and rather straightforwardly measurable in the real world. In relation to sinks and sources, the oceans cannot at the same time be a nett sink and a source!
N. Zeng (2005) Terrestrial mechanisms of interannual CO2 variability. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19, GB1016
Steven Goddard (07:48:41) :
the only recent pH data anyone here has produced does not show acidification
Santana-Casiano et al 2007, for example –
“Our series of experimental pHT data confirm the acidification of surface waters in the east Atlantic Ocean, with an interannual decrease of 0.0017 ± 0.0004 pH units yr-1”
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18717426
Graeme Rodaughan (07:58:45) :
In this forum – I also raise my hand and second Alan Millar’s request.
Alan Millar’s question was addressed as follows:
Perhaps some of our alarmist friends would like to explain.
I’m not an alarmist, so I wont be responding to that.
@ur momisugly Steven Goddard,
“I am still waiting for someone to produce raw data showing that global ocean pH has been dropping.”
“Given that the corals are not directly exposed to the atmosphere and that the only recent pH data anyone here has produced does not show acidification,”
Once again, the HOTS (Hawaiin Ocean Time Series) and BATS (Bermuda Atlantic Time Series) demonstrate falling oceanic pH. These data are widely cited, readily available and cited in my post above. Additional datasets are available from NOAA for the tropical Western Atlantic, as well as several others. The data are right there and are unambiguous: oceanic pH and CO3= concentrations are dropping while TCO2, pCO2, and HCO3- concentrations are climbing. Further, the change in oceanic DIC (stable isotopes) matches that of fossil fuel derived CO2. The ocean is being acidified by fossil fuel CO2–it’s plain as day, if you bother to look at the data, of course.
“…you have not yet demonstrated any reason to believe that recent changes in atmospheric CO2 have had or should have any direct impact on the corals.”
Have you examined any of the experimental data wherein corals were exposed to various pCO2 concentrations???
Steven, your ignorance is not evidence. Simply ignoring the data doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Chris
pkatt (02:34:40) :
Bill D (10:29:28) :
pretty obvious you didn’t read the link:)
Pk att:
Your are correct that I did not read the whole link and I should have, so I stand corrected.
I was concerned about the term “shellfish” when I wrote my original comment. This term may be ok for cook books and restaurant menus, but it refers to a disparate group of animals, none of which are fish. My understanding is that the term “shellfish” includes both crustaceans (which are arthropods) and bivalves (which are mollusks). These groups are quite far apart in terms of physiology, genetics, and phylogeny. The term “shellfish” is confusing and should not be used in scientific discussions. The term probably dates back to the middle ages and reflects something about “”seafood””.
Some posts have already established that the corals that during the ancient times of higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 were quite different. However, at least these belong to a reasonable monophyletic group.
Foinavon:
You assert:
“Since there are very basic errors in the information that you seemed to have provided to the journalist [see foinavon (04:14:55)], the articles premises seem, in fact, not to be so “questionable”.”
I know of none and you have cited none.
And I still await the apology for your unfounded and gratuitous insult.
John Philip:
You ignored all my points and used smear and inuendo of Jaworowski to deflect attention from my points. When I objected to that you said you “beg to differ” and cited a blog article by Hans Oeschger in support of your smear and innuendo. And you challenged me to comment on that blog item saying you look forward to hearing from me. Yu are now hearing from me about it.
The blog is a typical pro-AGW web site called “Some Are Boojums”, and it seems to have some of the characteristics of the laughable RealClimate.org. Its article by Oeschger begins saying:
“Jaworowski’s article in ESPR is so hard to locate, it wouldn’t be too unreasonable to suspect that the journal is not eager now for people to take much notice of it. But it did get noticed by one giant in climate science — Hans Oeschger.”
Now, what is that supposed to mean?
Was Jaworowski’s paper hidden so it would not be noticed? Clearly not because they and Oeschger both noticed it. Anyway, Jawarowski’s presentation for the US Senate was not hidden and can be seen at
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Or was Jaworowski’s paper so insignificant that it dioes not warrant attention? But Oschger clearly thought it was sufficiently important for him to dispute it.
And Oeschger’s so-called critique on “Some Are Boojums” begins;
“It is with great hesitation that I write in reply to the paper by JAWOROWSKI, this paper deserves little attention.”
This beginning establishes the standard of his critique.
Oeschger second paragraph begins:
“I have been personally involved in the development of this field since its inception.”
But he has not studied ice cores as long as Jawarowski who is the ‘grandaddy’ of scientists who have studied ice cores. Jawarowski has been doing it for over 4 decades. He mounted ten expeditions to glaciers and polar regions to extract ice cores and he developed the basic methods for their recovery, preservation and analysis.
Oeschger continues with a page of pro-AGW propoganda that makes assertions such as;
“Although we knew since the nineteen fifties that human activities might change the climate of the Earth, it was not until the mid seventies we realised that mankind was faced with a serious problem.”
Really? In the “mid seventies we realised that mankind was faced with serious problem”? At that time the consensus was fear that anthropogenic aerosol emissions were likely to cause an ice age: “concerned scientists” petitioned the US President about it. But he clearly states that the “serious problem” was (is?) anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and, therefore, AGW. But, to date there is no empirical evidence for AGW; none, zilch, nada, nil. Decades of research have failed to find any. So, his propoganda is nothing more than twaddle.
Oeschger then mentions some of the many faults in ice core analyses that Jaworowski explains but Oeschger does not refute any of them. He merely denies the problems exist with such cogent scientific arguments as:
“For years he (i.e. Jaworowski) emphasizes only the difficulties of these studies, formulates the underlying assumptions which sometimes are only partly fulfilled and criticizes the work performed hitherto in an unscrupulous manner. He does this without any appreciation for the development of expertise in this field over several decades.”
And Oeschger concludes saying:
“The study of the history of Earth system parameters is an on-going process; an increasing number of laboratories have become involved and interact with each other. As it is the case in any field of science, the state of art is continuously critically assessed and attempts are made to improve the quality of the research. Ice-core information is fundamental for the assessment of one of the most urgent problems of our time. Based on my experience during decades of involvement in this field, I consider the chances as very small that the major findings from greenhouse gas studies on ice cores are fundamentally wrong; and I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.”
Irresponsible? It is “irresponsible” to point out methodological errors in a supposedly scientific analysis? And this accusation is not based on any evidence, information and/or argument but on his “experience”: i.e. his personal opinion.
If you had bothered to watch the video I cited (i.e. I wrote http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork2008-video.html
At that URL,scroll down to
Monday, March 3, 2008
4:00 – 5:30 p.m.
Track 1: Paleolimatology
and click on my name
then scrollback to the top where the video will appear.)
then you would have known my familiarity with Jaworowki’s work and my decades of association with him.
Clearly, I know more of Jaworoski’s work – and I understand it better – than Oschger. But Oschger’s article suggests that he and I share the same opinion that Jaworowski’s work is important and has important implications. Otherwise, why would Oschger have bothered to write the article, and why does his article fail to provide any evidence that refutes Jaworowski’s main points?
Richard
Steven Goddard- you say “I am still waiting for someone to produce raw data showing that global ocean pH has been dropping.”
Absolutely agreed.
I am also looking for this dataset that would involve measuring ocean pH (measured with an accuracy of 0.01 pH or better to allow reliable measurements of annual or decadal trends in global pH) on an hourly or daily schedule at ten’s of thousands of points evenly distributed (not just near shorelines or along shipping lanes) across the globe’s oceans. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that this dataset does not exist. It does not exist for a measurement of today’s ocean pH, let alone trends in ocean pH over the last decades or centuries.
The few data sets that exist show remarkably large (up to 1 pH!) daily, seasonal and annual variations in pH compared with the tiny trends people are claiming to know with robust precision. We are back to the same problem that plagues temperature trends, looking for tiny slopes amongst huge short-term variations.
Foinavon:
I regret that I am getting tired with your obfuscations so I will address only one of your iterated assertions.
In response to my correctly disputing your assertion that CO2 is being “forced into the oceans” I correctly said:
“Rubbish! The “real world evidence” is that the oceans release an order of magnitude more CO2 than the anthropogenic emission each year and they take back almost all of it each year. At issue is why they don’t take back all of it.”
You replied:
“Really? Evidence please!”
I answer that there is far, far too much evidence for me to cite it all here. As summer temperture rises the oceans warm and emit CO2, and they take it back each winter. This is demonstrated, for example, by the Mauna Loa data which you cite. The seasonal variability of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa is an order of magnitude greater than either the anthropogenic emission each year and the net increase in atmospheic CO2 each year.
Of course you could argue that this seasonal variation is a result of volcanology but then you would have to explain why the entire data set is not rubbish. Or you could try to argue that it is a result of land-based flora but then you would have to argue that the decision to measure at Mauna Loa to avoid such biogenic effects was mistaken.
Richard
foinavon (08:20:22) :
Richard S Courtney (05:59:06)
Foinavon: I am not an expert on the earth’s carbon budget, but everything that I”ve read over the last 20 years agrees with your comment that the oceans are the major carbon sink for the earth. Without losses to the oceans, it’s easy to calculate that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would be rising much more quickly that it currently is.
I have not read or heard any disagreement with this conclusion (oceans are a net sink) before coming to this blog. So, when I read comments like those of Richard on this blog I get confused and wonder whether I am misunderstanding his terminology.
I know more about lakes than atmospherics and do know that the warming of tundra in Canada, Alaska and Siberia has resulted in substantial release of CO2 and methane from lakes and the numerous small ponds that dot the landscape. This is because of the thawing of permafrost soils that have been frozen for millenia. As we all know, when organic matter thaws, the rate of bacterial decomposition increases (for example, if your freezer breaks down and the food thaws; I once was away from home for two months and came home to a broken freezer). These northern soils represent a tremendous store of carbon, one that could cause carbon releases to the atmosphere to get out of human control (if the melting of the permafrost continues). This is not controversial, because it is easy to measure the organic carbon content of these peat rich soils and there is a lot of data. If the climate gets colder and the permafrost stays frozen during summer, this problem will subside. If the melting of the permafrost expands in extent, this problem will accelerate the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Forget about 200 years. Let’s look at 40 years.
Show me one study, which employed Gage R&R / MSA principles, which is an apples to apples comparison of a significant volume of ocean, across the depth profile, seasons, diurnal variations, which factors in measurement error and innate variations and bias, etc, that demonstrates, at Six Sigma or better, that there has been a general en masse decline in oceanic pH over the past 40 years.
I await such a study. It has yet to be revealed, assuming it exists at all.
Graeme Rodaughan (07:58:45) :
Much like any solution of CO2, the dissolved concentration is a property of the ocean temperature and the atmospheric pressure of CO2 in the air above the solution. So as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, so does the concentration of CO2 in the oceans. This is simply a mass-action effect defined by a simple partition equilibrium.
On the other hand solutions of CO2 have an inverse temperature-dependence in relation to their ability to absorb CO2. As a solution gets warmer it absorbs CO2 less efficiently.
So the nett effect is very much circumstance-dependent. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen very dramatically since the start of the industrial age, and especially since the early-mid ’60s. The temperature rise has been rather significant (around 0.5-0.6 oC in the ocean). This is rather small in relation to the temperature-dependence of CO2 partitioning, so that the “force” driving CO2 into the oceans (greatly enhanced atmospheric concentrations) strongly dominates over the temperature effect. One can probably state that the warming of the oceans has slightly suppressed the ability of the oceans to take up CO2 from the atmosphere, and no doubt these contributions can be more precisely calculated. However it’s easy to establish that despite some warming, the oceans have done an excellent job of absorbing around 35-40% of our emissions (so far!).
Under the circumastance where temperature changes occur at least initially without changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration the situation is different. In this case the ocean temperature effect dominates, and in a warming world without an initially raised atmospheric CO2 concentration, the atmospheric CO2 concentration will rise in response to enhanced ocean warming (terrestrial contributions are also significant). This is likely the case during the glacial-interglacial transitions of the ice age cycles.
We can gain a pretty good estimate of this effect by observing that during ice age cycles the glacial-interglacial transitions rather uniformly produced a temperature rise of around 5-6 oC globally, associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 90 ppm (around 180 ppm glacial to around 270 ppm interglacial). These transitions occurred slowly, such that the ocean-atmosphere system was probably pretty close to equilibrium.
So we can estimate that by and large, a 5-6 oC of global warming (initial forcings and resulting feedbacks and all!) results in an atmospheric CO2 rise near 90 ppm, or not far off 15 ppm of CO2 per oC of temperature rise…..
@ur momisugly Graeme Rodaughan
“In this forum – I also raise my hand and second Alan Millar’s request.
Could some one please explain how warming oceans can absorb more CO2 such that they can become acidified, given that warming oceans have a well known property of outgassing CO2.
I look forward to a real attempt to address this question”
Ha, that’s an incredibly easy question to answer. Gas solubility in water is governed by Henry’s law:
[X] = Kh*pX
where [X] is the concentration of the dissolved gas in umol/kg, Kh is a Henry’s law constant for that gas at a given temperature, pressure, and in sea water, salinity, and pX is the partial pressure of that gas in the overlying atmosphere. Kh for CO2 (and essentially any other common gas) has been well characterized in sea water over a wide range of temps, pressures, and salinities. Of course, these calculations can be easily verified, and re-verified, and re-re-verified ad nauseum by experimentally determing the DIC, k1 and k2 for carbonic acid.
CO2 has risen ~100 uatm to date: from ~285 uatm to ~385 atm. During that same time period mean oceanic temperature has risen ~0.5 C.
We can calculate dissolved CO2 for whatever set of conditions we like. For this example, let’s just set salinity at 35 ppt (mean oceanic value), total alkalinity at 2300 ueq/kg (mean), pressure at 1 atm (mean). We’ll calculate what happens to dissolved CO2 when we go from pCO2 = 285 uatm to 385 atm with and without 0.5 C of warming. We can do this at whatever (realistic) temp we choose, but let’s just use a standard temp of 25 C for ease of calculation.
[CO2] @ur momisugly 25.0 C
pCO2 = 285 uatm, [CO2] = 8.07 umol/kg (pHsws = 8.15, seawater scale pH)
pCO2 = 385 uatm, [CO2] = 10.90 umol/kg (pHsws = 8.05)
That’s a (10.90-8.07)/8.07 = 35.1% increase in dissolved CO2, the same as the increase in pCO2
If we have the same increase in pCO2 but temperature rises to 25.5 C we get
[CO2] = 10.76 umol/kg (pHsws = 8.05)
That’s a (10.76-8.07)/8.07 = 33.3% increase in dissolved CO2 for a 35.1% increase in pCO2.
Of course, we can compensate for the increase in pCO2 by raising temperature a lot, to reduce CO2 solubility. In order to obtain the same amount of dissolved CO2 as we had with pCO2 = 285 uatm (= 8.07 umol/kg) all we have to do is raise temperature by 13.6 C up to 38.6 C, hotter than human body temperature! However, this increase in temperature itself results in an even larger reduction of pH than the increase in dissolved CO2 (from 8.15 to 8.03 instead of 8.15 to 8.05). The reduced pH results from a shift in K1 and K2 for carbonic acid, as well as a small influence of K2 for HSO4- and K for HF.
So sir, there’s your answer. The increase in temperature has had a small effect on CO2 solubility. The slight reduction of [CO2] caused by the temp increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the increase in [CO2] caused by the increase in pCO2. See, it’s quite simple, and not at all difficult to answer (provided one understands the chemistry, of course).
Chris
Richard S Courtney (09:06:35)
Come on Richard. We all know that the marked sinusoidal variation in atmospheric CO2 that “piggy-backs” on the rising atmospheric CO2 trend, is dominated by the N. hemisphere seasonal plant growth/decay cycles. We surely don’t need to readdress such extraordinarily basic and well-characterised phenomena…
…and in response to my request for evidence, your response is that there is “far too much evidence for me to cite it all here”. I wonder who’s actually “obfuscating” here! I’m attempting to be as clear and careful as I can, and to provide evidence in suport of my points from the scientific literature.
P.S…. if there’s “far too much evidence” to cite, why not just cite a wee bit of it?!
Bill DeMott (09:07:47)
Yes I agree with you Bill.
Incidentally, since you invited us to look at your publications in an early post, I did so. I have to say you have an impressive set of very beautiful and highly cited papers. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a publication record that is so uniformly well-cited and lacking in inconsequential “bits and pieces”….
J Lo (20:58:59) :
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?
#DEFINE actually acid “pH 7.0”
#DEFINE neutralizing “pH ==> 0.0”
And here it comes together…
Have you considered that in a solution that is actually alkaline there is an excess of OH- (as opposed to one that is actually acid which has H3O+) and that your H+ is going to instantly react with the OH- to produce H2O ?
(And that is why it matters that something which is actually alkaline be described as ‘neutralizing’ when it’s pH number is becoming smaller as opposed to calling it ‘acidifying’; because to call it acidifying misleads as to the species of ion that are laying about and that leads to bad chemistry predictions.>
Chris J,
I plugged the first two HOTS pH data sets into a spreadsheet (Kahe and Aloha) and both showed a positive trend in pH over their length of record. I will look at the other two records later.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pj0h2MODqj3i9dc6DdtQDPw
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pj0h2MODqj3h1BPd_ggZfSQ
You make bold claims that the data supports your contention of increased acidity, when in fact it does not.
Dang it. HTML stole my less than sign…
J Lo (20:58:59) :
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?
#DEFINE actually acid “pH less than 7.0”
#DEFINE actually alkaline “pH greater than 7.0”
#DEFINE neutralizing “pH moving toward 0.0”
And here it comes together…
Have you considered that in a solution that is actually alkaline there is an excess of OH- (as opposed to one that is actually acid which has H3O+) and that your H+ is going to instantly react with the OH- to produce H2O ?
(And that is why it matters that something which is actually alkaline be described as ‘neutralizing’ when it’s pH number is becoming smaller as opposed to calling it ‘acidifying’; because to call it acidifying misleads as to the species of ion that are laying about and that leads to bad chemistry predictions.)
@Bill D (23:16:39) :
The claimant had said ‘super saturated’. I have no dispute that there must be suitable conditions, only over the degree. Freshwater lakes are not typically saturated with carbonate and calcium… though some good water for whiskey comes from the Karst areas 😎 BTW, the freshwater clams I referred to were gathered from the Sacramento River basin. Not exactly limestone country (but not zebra’s either)