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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
RE: “Take a trip to the Grand Canyon and observe the thick white layer across the top – named the Kaibab Limestone”
Or take a look at the Alps. Immense amounts of fixed carbon in them thar hills! All those “dents” of craggy lime stone.
Mary Hinge
“Your comment shows what is wrong with the sceptic view. You just don’t read the evidence,or ignore it if you do. ”
I’m not ashamed of being skeptical. With a lack of real evidence, the alternative to being skeptical is often to jump to the wrong conclusion.
Your own comments meanwhile show the two main problems with the AGW view:
a) You accept mere opinion as “evidence”. It never is! In a court it would be called “hearsay”. In science it is called “theory”. All opinions ultimately need some sort of backup data. By coincidence, I just read the other day that it was commonly believed by the psychiatric community that cauliflower ears were a sign of insanity. Should anyone have believed their theory simply because it was the majority opinion? As a scientist you should know that attribution is a bit more complex than counting the number of me-too papers. We need real evidence, not more mere opinion.
b) You confuse correlation with causation. We can all very easily correlate any two things that have risen in the past 10 years and say they are related but that is classically bad science. Pollution and tourism have obviously also risen. Every study I’ve seen mentions those and other factors – as indeed did the paper you referenced. We need to find the particular thing that kills the coral though. To do that we need to try to eliminate certain factors by comparisons.
Hence you should now see that the paper you referred to made these two common failings too, whilst still being careful to mention the other factors which you obviously ignored. But singling out global warming (anthropogenic or not) as deserving special attention seems to ignore the facts as my reference to Cuba’s coral and my subsequent comment about real scientific work that says that warming should lead to more coral, not less are both intended to demonstrate.
Using proper scientific methods, all you have to do is look at the data dispassionately and CO2 can very quickly be eliminated as a “stress”. That much is very obvious to me and to many others. As long as certain prominent scientists refuse to do this then we will surely be headed in the wrong direction and we may not prevent a crisis. I hope that isn’t the case.
Back on my Sigma topic … still no takers for demonstrating Gage R&R for a significant oceanic study of 2 sigma or better.
OK, here’s my final offer, then, liquidation (e.g a complete and utter discrediting) will commence.
1 Sigma.
Wow 602 responses! Is that a record?
RE: “on the longer scale the opposite is projected. ”
“Projected” … typical warmista speak.
I think I am going to be ill.
@ur momisugly Steven Goddard,
Please, I beseach you, read or re-read my last several mosts above starting with Chris J (07:01:34) : very carefully. You have said the same sorts of things in the last several posts though I have already demonstrated why these points are incorrect (above). Please read these posts (I can appreciate you may not have seen them) and we can continue our discussion.
Chris
Sadlov: I’d take your bet just to be friendly but sadly I’ve no coin to part with.
Hey, Beaker, I got As in Inorganic, my Interior Designer sisters passed Organic. Why do you think any of us would find your jeremiads enlightening? Re-read yourself.
This is just too much fun.
The only evidence that has been presented for the oceans becoming more acidic is one highly questionable and erratic graph of “calculated data” from HOTS. All three “measured data” sets (Monterey, Aloha and Kahe) show no meaningful trend towards lower pH, and we know that the carbonate compensation depth wasn’t tremendously different in the Ordovician when CO2 levels were 4,000 PPM and thousands of species of CaCO3 based shellfish and corals thrived.
The AGW crowd claims that ocean CO2 absorption rates are decreasing, while ocean acidification rates (from CO2 absorption) are increasing. Never mind that these are mutually exclusive. (Whatever panic story works best with the current crowd, seems to be the philosophy.)
I’m not impressed.
Chris,
“the graph (select pH comparison):
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/trends.html
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/protocols/chap23.html
“pH is measured electrochemically using a combination
electrode.”
“The pH of seawater samples is calculated using the
electrode slope and isoelectric point and sample temperature.””
Agreed, that is curious. For instance, see: http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/methods/ph.html
I’m fairly certain that the ‘measured’ = spectrophotometric, but let me double check references to be sure.
*************
I’ve no reason to doubt that the measured data reflects the spectrophometric method. The problem is in what you claim as the third method (which you don’t even name) as being the method used to create the continuous record and trend on the graph. You asked me to verify your claim, yet I have already provided the link to how ph is claimed to be calculated. I will assume that because you think that curious, that the method used continuously from 1989 to the present is not the one you claim, but one of two methods you claim are as or less accurate. Yet you said earlier:
“They have a long-term dataset for a huge number of parameters, including DIC, TA, S, T, P, DIP, total silicate, etc. pH can be calculated from these data more accurately than it can be measured with the tools that were available when they started taking this data (namely electrodes).”
So which is method have they been using continuously from 1989 to the present (the trend line), “electrodes” or your “calculated” method you describe in Chris J (17:52:34)? I’m asking you, since the quote above clearly shows that you thought that “electrodes” were used, not the “calculated” method you later claimed.
Now maybe it is true that they were taking ph reading from “electrodes” in 1989, but somewhere down the road they started “calculating” from saved flasks and changed all the data to reflect what you claim is more accurate data, but that the chart doesn’t give us a hint of that, athough the chart does show another dataset from another method.
Perhaps you are right, since you have made the claim, or at least to my mind implied that is what has happened, that all these “parameters” are still available for testing by “calculation”, there is no indication of that being the case, nor have you provided any documentation of that, and the references both provided by you and me to the HOT website do not reflect that, rather what has been provided from that site contradicts the claim that the continuously graphed data is from “calculated” methodology.
0 Sigma. In other words, there is no signal in the noise.
As I suspected.
Chris J,
“Oh good lord Glenn–”pure” calcite and aragonite (pure being defined as without impurites/inclusions) do not exist.”
Then do not include CaCO3 in chemical formulations.
Chris J (10:07:30) :
Next educational trip I suggest is to Carlsbad Caverns. There you can see what happens when 5.2 pH rain lands on Calcium Carbonate rock. The acid rain dissolves the rock and leaves big holes behind. Large enough to put a football field in.”
And that the dissolved materials are redeposited elsewhere in the cave (you know, stalagmites/stalactites) or is lost to groundwater and eventually ends up somewhere else (possibly the ocean). I won’t quibble too much over this point, as it’s just not worth it, but only rainwater with substantially lower than normal pH due to the dissolution of NOx and SOx is operationally termed “acid rain”. Normal rainwater is slightly acidic, but is not “acid rain”.
“The dissolution process also releases CO2 to the atmosphere. Then the water becomes alkaline, and forms stalactites and stalagmites.”
Great googly moogly man, you really don’t have a clue how this chemistry works, do you? The dissolution of carbonates does not release CO2 to the atmosphere, it consumes it: CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O = Ca++ + 2HCO3-
*********************************
You may have noticed that Steven did not mention or refer to carbonic acid as being responsible for Carlsbad, and you assumed that he was talking about CO2 in water, but you were aware that sulfuric acid was involved in the formation of the caves. Is this dissolution process incorrect?
CaCo3 + H2SO4 = CaSO4 + H2O + CO2
Hi Chris,
Most people learn in primary school science class, that if you mix acid and baking soda or acid and limestone together, you create copious amounts of CO2. Since you seem to have forgotten that, here is a explanation which might help out.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3347/vinegar+bsoda4.html
What actually happens is this: the acetic acid (that’s what makes vinegar sour) reacts with sodium bicarbonate (a compound that’s in baking soda) to form carbonic acid. It’s really a double replacement reaction. Carbonic acid is unstable, and it immediately falls apart into carbon dioxide and water (it’s a decomposition reaction). The bubbles you see from the reaction come from the carbon dioxide escaping the solution that is left.
@ur momisugly Glenn,
“Chris J,
“Oh good lord Glenn–”pure” calcite and aragonite (pure being defined as without impurites/inclusions) do not exist.”
Then do not include CaCO3 in chemical formulations.”
Glenn, one uses mole fractions, e.g., Ca80Mg20CO3 for 20 mol % MgCO3 hi-Mg calcite.
“You may have noticed that Steven did not mention or refer to carbonic acid as being responsible for Carlsbad, and you assumed that he was talking about CO2 in water,”
Glenn, you cite the pertinent passage in your post:
“Next educational trip I suggest is to Carlsbad Caverns. There you can see what happens when 5.2 pH rain lands on Calcium Carbonate rock. The acid rain dissolves the rock and leaves big holes behind. Large enough to put a football field in”
That’s carbonic acid in rain water Glenn. He specifically mentioned CO2 in rain water in reference to CaCO3 dissolution at Carlsbad.
“but you were aware that sulfuric acid was involved in the formation of the caves. Is this dissolution process incorrect?
CaCo3 + H2SO4 = CaSO4 + H2O + CO2”
Ha, yes Glenn, I am aware of the role of sulfuric acid in the cave formation, and yes that is the correct overall equation for the reaction of CaCO3 with H2SO4. That, however, is not what Steven argued—I responded to his argument.
Chris
Here is another fun one. Even if you use some of that “impure” limestone Chris has been warning us about ad nauseum (or just about any other carbonate containing material) the release of CO2 is the same:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/shober32.html
If you live in a section of the country where there is limestone, this is a great recipe for fun. Simply drop a limestone pebble into the acidic vinegar and watch it begin to bubble and boil! This happens because the limestone is so alkaline (the opposite of acid) that the two substances go to war, creating carbon dioxide gas bubbles as the stone is eaten away. This project will also work if you live in a section of the country where there are talc mines (chalk or talcum powder) or beaches (sea shells) or chicken houses (egg shells!).
@ur momisugly Steven Goddard,
Hi Steven,
“Hi Chris,
Most people learn in primary school science class, that if you mix acid and baking soda or acid and limestone together, you create copious amounts of CO2. Since you seem to have forgotten that, here is a explanation which might help out.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3347/vinegar+bsoda4.html
What actually happens is this: the acetic acid (that’s what makes vinegar sour) reacts with sodium bicarbonate (a compound that’s in baking soda) to form carbonic acid. It’s really a double replacement reaction. Carbonic acid is unstable, and it immediately falls apart into carbon dioxide and water (it’s a decomposition reaction). The bubbles you see from the reaction come from the carbon dioxide escaping the solution that is left.”
Steven, the reaction of a carbonate (or NaHCO3 as described in the link) with an acid OTHER than carbonic acid is not the same as the reaction of a carbonate with CO2.
For an acid besides carbonic we have:
CaCO3 + HxA = Ca++ + H+ + A- + CO2 + H2O
You get dissolved calcium, protons, the conjugate base of the acid, CO2 and water.
For the reaction of a carbonate with CO2 we have:
CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O = Ca++ + 2HCO3-
Getting to the big picture though, you’ve claimed above that the dissolution of CaCO3 will neutralize the addition of CO2 to sea water. You claim here that the dissolution of CaCO3 produces CO2. So, you’re suggesting that the dissolution of CaCO3 simultaneously sequesters and produces CO2?
Time to open a textbook. May I recommend Aquatic Chemistry by Stumm and Morgan.
Since you’ve not responded to any of the points I raised above I assume we are in agreement, yes? The dissolution of CaCO3 sequesters CO2 via the reaction above, but the timescale required to reestablish arag/calc saturation state and the CCD similar to the preindustrial after the slug of CO2 we are on track to produce will require on the order 100,000 yrs. The response time is far too slow to meaningfully affect oceanic pH or other chemistry parameters this century.
Chris
@ur momisugly Glenn,
Hi Glenn,
“I’ve no reason to doubt that the measured data reflects the spectrophometric method. The problem is in what you claim as the third method (which you don’t even name)”
I’m not sure it has a name: it’s the calculation of in situ pH given measured values for all of the parameters I list. I mean, what should we call that: ‘pH calculated using all pertinent data and dissociation constants’?
“as being the method used to create the continuous record and trend on the graph. You asked me to verify your claim, yet I have already provided the link to how ph is claimed to be calculated.”
No no no Glenn, that is not a calculated pH, that is a measured pH. pH can be measured with electrodes, as in the link you provide (not terribly accurate), with an indicator dye, e.g., m-cresol purple (very accurate), or calculated with the mentioned data (very accurate).
“I will assume that because you think that curious, that the method used continuously from 1989 to the present is not the one you claim, but one of two methods you claim are as or less accurate.”
No Glenn, the ‘calculated’ dataset is exactly as I state above. My understanding was that the ‘measured’ dataset was measured using the m-cresol purple method. Your link to a measured electrode method has made me question my memory here, so I’ll have to go back to the references to double check on which of the two methods was used to produce the ‘measured’ dataset.
“So which is method have they been using continuously from 1989 to the present (the trend line), “electrodes” or your “calculated” method you describe in Chris J (17:52:34)? I’m asking you, since the quote above clearly shows that you thought that “electrodes” were used, not the “calculated” method you later claimed.”
The ‘calculated’ dataset from 1989 to present is calculated from the data I mention above—that I’m sure about. The ‘measured’ dataset I believe was created using the m-cresol purple method. As above, I’ll have to go back to the references to determine if I’m remembering correctly that they used the m-cresol purple method to produce this dataset, or if I’m misremembering and they used electrodes.
“Now maybe it is true that they were taking ph reading from “electrodes” in 1989, but somewhere down the road they started “calculating” from saved flasks and changed all the data to reflect what you claim is more accurate data, but that the chart doesn’t give us a hint of that, athough the chart does show another dataset from another method.”
Huh-uh, this I’m certain about: the ‘calculated’ data are calculated from the array of parameters mentioned above, which they took over the entire period. The only question here is did they use the m-cresol purple method or electrodes to produce the ‘measured’ dataset. I’m not 100% sure at the moment. Agreed, the chart doesn’t make this clear. Detailed methodologies are in the published papers (and maybe somewhere on the site), which I’ll have to dig out when I get a chance. Also, I doubt very much the samples were saved very long—there’s usually only enough space in most labs for the samples you’re about to run, certainly not years worth of half run water samples (which wouldn’t be good with so much water removed anyway).
“Perhaps you are right, since you have made the claim, or at least to my mind implied that is what has happened, that all these “parameters” are still available for testing by “calculation”, there is no indication of that being the case, nor have you provided any documentation of that, and the references both provided by you and me to the HOT website do not reflect that, rather what has been provided from that site contradicts the claim that the continuously graphed data is from “calculated” methodology.”
All of the data you need are right there on the site. In the same place you were downloading the pH data you can select all of the parameters you need to calculate pH (as above) and then perform the calculations.
I don’t understand your claim that there’s no indication that the ‘calculated’ dataset was produced with CTD, nutrient, DIC, and TA data. It says ‘calculated’ right on the graphic. If you go to any of the papers they’ll mention this briefly and cite the references that show the pertinent information for calculation. I realize that this probably is very foreign to someone that does not work with seawater chemical analyses, but these are very standard methods used at thousands of labs around the world.
Chris
Chris J
“Next educational trip I suggest is to Carlsbad Caverns. There you can see what happens when 5.2 pH rain lands on Calcium Carbonate rock. The acid rain dissolves the rock and leaves big holes behind. Large enough to put a football field in”
That’s carbonic acid in rain water Glenn. He specifically mentioned CO2 in rain water in reference to CaCO3 dissolution at Carlsbad.
******************
Er, no, he, didn’t, Chris. He didn’t mention CO2 specifically, he didn’t mention CO2 at all. And there’s more than carbonic acid in acid rain.
“Glenn, one uses mole fractions, e.g., Ca80Mg20CO3 for 20 mol % MgCO3 hi-Mg calcite.”
Then include that in all chemical formulations, if pure calcite does not exist.
@ur momisugly Steven Goddard,
“Here is another fun one. Even if you use some of that “impure” limestone Chris has been warning us about ad nauseum (or just about any other carbonate containing material) the release of CO2 is the same:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/shober32.html
If you live in a section of the country where there is limestone, this is a great recipe for fun. Simply drop a limestone pebble into the acidic vinegar and watch it begin to bubble and boil! This happens because the limestone is so alkaline (the opposite of acid) that the two substances go to war, creating carbon dioxide gas bubbles as the stone is eaten away. This project will also work if you live in a section of the country where there are talc mines (chalk or talcum powder) or beaches (sea shells) or chicken houses (egg shells!).”
See above Steven. CaCO3 cannot simultaneously sequester and produce CO2 upon reaction with CO2. See Stumm and Morgan, 1996 for an extensive discussion of carbonate chemistry.
Chris
Chris,
You are a piece of work. Take a piece of limestone and stick it in a dilute acid. You will see lots of CO2 bubbles coming up. The fact that you don’t understand it, doesn’t change reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
“Carbon dioxide is soluble in water, in which it spontaneously interconverts between CO2 and H2CO3 (carbonic acid).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid
“It has since been shown, by theoretical calculations, that the presence of even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon dioxide and water fairly quickly.”
Steven Goddard (16:50:10) :
“Here is another fun one. Even if you use some of that “impure” limestone Chris has been warning us about ad nauseum (or just about any other carbonate containing material) the release of CO2 is the same:”
Shoot, just drop a tums into coke and watch the fizz and calcium condensing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate
“The flow of bicarbonate ions from rocks weathered by the carbonic acid in rainwater is an important part of the carbon cycle.”
Chris J (09:01:14) :
It would be nice to know why you hide behind an initial, but since it’s unlikely I’ll ever have you as a Chemistry professor I suppose it doesn’t matter. I do recommend that you take the time to learn how to be a teacher without attacking and denigrating your students. I generally skip over your posts, there are plenty of other posters who are worth reading. It’s rather a pity, as I’m fond of limestone caves. New Hampshire would be a better place it if had some limestone. And more species of snakes. And no black flies.
Thank you for taking the time to provide examples of ad hominem attacks. You must be a real joy at the dinner table:
Instead of attacking arguments and then stepping up to attacking the messenger, try simply explaining the science and stop there. Try asking questions of the messenger that are designed to let _him_ discover any mistakes, people are generally more willing to admit a mistake when they find it themselves than when being berated by claims like “you really have no idea what you are talking about.”