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.
Steven,
“Remember that shellfish appeared in the oceans when atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than the present.”
Are they the same shellfish as today’s shellfish?
“As far as the bomb effect goes, of course it is important. The fact that the ecosystem has recovered from completely annihilated and highly radioactive in just 55 years, indicates a tremendous resiliency.”
A human being can survive a heavy car crash and recover completely after a certain amount of time. If however after the car crash the car drops into a river, the human being will not recover. Of course an ecosystem can survive a thermonuclear explosion when after that conditions return to normal. But the whole point is that there’s possibly a shift that is affecting those conditions. If the ocean pH reaches a certain threshold and you set off a thermonuclear bomb in an area where there is a lot of coral, the coral will NOT recover.
I don’t know much about the science, but this is just plain common sense.
“What I am saying is that corals and other shellfish have thrived at much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. ”
I’ll ask you again: Did these corals and other shellfish in the distant past have to cope with a rate of change that is a hundred times bigger than natural variability? If so, how did they do? You probably know this as you must have done some extensive research for your article.
“The point being that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean pH is apparently not so simple as some might have us believe.”
If this is the case then why is your article so incredibly simplistic? You’re not addressing the real issue at all, ie rate of change. You’re just beating about the bush because you don’t want CO2 to be linked to any possible adverse effects. This is misleading and I’m not really sure if you’re doing it on purpose or not. I would say you’re too smart not too notice the fallacies of your argument.
@pablo an ex pat
My …“Indian Ocean winter pH range is about 7.87 to 8.23 (0.35 pH units!) over the Temperature Range of about 0.2 to 0.3 DegC”
SHOULD HAVE READ…
Indian Ocean winter pH range is about 7.87 to 8.23 (0.35 pH units!) over the Temperature Range of about 0.2 to 30 DegC
Sorry
THIRD OF THREE, TAKE TWO
It won’t let me give the You Tube links, so I’ll try something different…
Link one
Link two
Reply: I accidentally deleted your post, and lost the links when I tried to recreate it from my cache. My sincere apologies.
Comment update. I recovered the links from the previous post.
FYI, posts here are moderated, so they don’t show up until approved. ~charles the moderator
@Charles the moderator
“Reply: I accidentally deleted your post, and lost the links when I tried to recreate it. My sincere apologies.”
Stuff happens. I think I’ve gotten everything in these several posts, so nothing was lost. And, since I’ve posted it, it’s a good thing you can’t redo it so there won’t be any redundancy.
Regards
Neven asks:
Please define natural variability?
Please also tell us what you are concerned with? Acidification? Temperature Increases?
@Charles the moderator
Oh, but I see you did recostruct a lot of it. Sorry about the duplication, but sometimes moderators don’t get to restoring things until too late for comments to be read by the readers the poster intended them for, so since I didn’t know when you would get to it I tried to get the info out there. Sorry, and thanks for being so timely. Sorry I wasn’t expecting it.
Bill D (09:43:50) :
“Compare your reasoning with a few dozen articles written by experts in ocean chemistry before you assume that they are wrong.”
You make a good point – and if I had time, I would, but I am offering my perspective as a geologist , not as an ocean chemist. The geologic record (my speciality) – and the basic chemistry of CO2 which is less soluble in warmer water (does anyone dispute that?) and the fact the quote from John Phillip that bleaching / dying events are worse in warm waters simply do not add up – all say more CO2 is better – at least for coral – so there is a huge disconnect here – which given the alarmist rhetorical makes me very very skeptical of these claims. You should be skeptical too. You don’t need to be an expert in ocean chemistry to recognize that there is a huge disconnect here.
As a side note, I am guessing almost all ocean chemistry research is funded by grants – and if you are funded by grants, your motives are suspect. Sad , but true. Anyone who has been in a graduate level science program & has seen the grant process knows this. You think “big oil” is motivated by money? That’s nothing compared to a college prof who will be unemployed & pennyless if he doesn’t get his grant. If the funders of the grant want the research to show that CO2 is evil, then the research will show it’s evil – to the best of it’s ability.
This again comes back to my original post on this thread. Science, not just climatology, is being irreparably harmed by politics seeping into it. We cant blindly trust anything that anyone publishes anymore because the process has become so corrupt – we must all be skeptical of all points put forward & make our own judgments of what is correct. Science has sold it’s soul to the devil & we are all paying the price. Fortunately, there are a few questioning minds out there, but the general public is being lead around by the nose by those who control the purse strings (govt , which in turn funds the grants) – being lead to believe that scientists are somehow above the fray. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
Neven (20:19:08) :
I don’t know much about the science, but this is just plain common sense.
and
’ll ask you again: Did these corals and other shellfish in the distant past have to cope with a rate of change that is a hundred times bigger than natural variability? If so, how did they do? You probably know this as you must have done some extensive research for your article.
The answer is yes, sometimes they did, when the temperatures started rising or falling rapidly, some research says within a few years. If you look at the thread below this one, co2-temperatures-and-ice-age, you can see it in the first figure.
You can also see that there is not “natural”. Rather that everything is natural and the most natural thing is transience.
As for the simplicity of this presentation, do you know the KISS principle? Keep It Simple Stupid. It is a prime driver of science, particularly of looking for a theory that fits the data. The simplest theory that fits the data wins every time. AGW theory is neither simple not fits the data.
Bill D (14:33:58) :
“Neutralization can either mean adding base to an acidic solution or adding acid to a basic solution. Solutions can approach a neutral (pH = 7.0) from above 7 or above 7. “Neutralization is clearly ambiguous–it does not say whether a solution is becoming more acidic or more basic. It’s like saying the “weather is gettin more moderate.” That doesn’t even tell us if it is cooling from being hot or warming from being cold.”
And if acidification only means to move more acidic, then a ph from 3 to 2 would also be acidification, yet the word itself would be ambiguous in that it not tell us if the ph were moving from base to acid. “The acidification of the oceans” could then mean that the oceans are already highly acidic. Oops, I used the word acidic.
One poster thinks the word clearly means simply to move the ph down, and claims that is some acknowledged or understood usage in science or a particular branch of science, leaving us to accept or reject his word for it.
Another poster argues that the word is used because no single word can express a reduction in alkalinity, as if using one word for a scientific process is ever an issue.
I may have omitted other arguments for why “acidification” should not be thought of as propaganda but rather as correct terminology or grammar, but none are convincing. And even less convincing when considering what often accompanies the word, “becoming more acidic”, which is clearly wrong. The oceans are not acidic. I have researched the definition at some length, and not found the word to be used to describe changes in alkalinity. You are welcome to do the same and return your results.
I’d think it safe to say that the general public regards the word acidification as “to make acidic”, or “acid”.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acidification
“the process of becoming acid or being converted into an acid”
http://www.answers.com/topic/acidification-chemistry
“(chemistry) Addition of an acid to a solution until the pH falls below 7”
http://www.chemistry-dictionary.com/definition/acidification.html
“This process happens when compounds like ammonia, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides are converted in a chemical reaction into acidic substances. ”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acidification
“The act or process of making something sour (acidifying), or changing into an acid.The act or process of making something sour (acidifying), or changing into an acid.”
Tall Bloke
Correct, but irrelevant, since the oceans are not becoming acidic, they are becoming very slightly less alkaline, or if you like, more PH neutral.
Get it right.
I am sorry you are confused Tall Bloke, but as many have pointed out here (Bill D, Peter, Marcus), acidification is any drop in pH regardless of whether it starts out as alkaline, neutral, or acidic. You can call it what you like, but acidification will remain the correct–and thus, perfectly acceptable– term.
Prof Tim Wootton (Dept. Ecology & Evolution,
The University of Chicago ) has a website at-
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/faculty/Wootton/pH.htm
He recently hit the MSM with data on ph reductions at one site off Washington’s coast. From his website, here is what he says about the global pH database upon which pH trends critically depend;
“Hence, predictions have been made that ocean pH will decline with increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions, and that this decline will be sufficient to disrupt major physiological processes such as calcification. While the physics of this reaction are well known, there are surprisingly few published data of measurements of pH change in the ocean through time. Furthermore, although laboratory studies demonstrate that many calcifying organisms perform poorly in acidified water, extrapolating these results to predict the response in complex ecosystems is difficult.”
The database is, shall we say, sparse.
As to changes in ocean pH of 0.1 being alarming;
“Since 2000, we have been monitoring physical ocean conditions, including ocean pH, at our main study site in the northeastern Pacific Ocean: Tatoosh Island, Washington, USA. We use a submersible data logger to record water conditions at 1/2 hour intervals, yielding a dataset of very high temporal resolution (>40,000 datapoints total and growing) to explore changes in pH through time.
In contrast to the widely-held notion that the ocean is well buffered, our pH data exhibit a surprising degree of systematic variability through time. Even over the course of a day, pH typically varies by 0.24 units, a consequence of the uptake and production of CO2 through photosynthesis and respiration. Hence biological processes, which are often left out of models of ocean pH, can have strong effects.”
A graph at his site indicates daily thru seasonal variations at this one location at Tatoosh Island, WA shows variations from 7.4 to 8.9 pH. It would seem particularly specious to claim a teleconnection from this site to the other 99.99999999% of the world’s oceans as to what global ocean pH is today. How about a hundred years ago? A thousand?
As to our understanding of what impacts multiyear trends in ocean pH measured in shallow waters at Tatoosh Island;
“Over the entire span of the data, ocean pH is clearly declining as atmospheric CO2 increases, but at a rate an order of magnitude faster than predicted by current physical models.”
Sounds like we yet more worthless models.
We need much more measured data, and much less catastrophism.
Α
If we exclude all of modern science that is funded by grants then almost no science remains. We might as well say that science can only be done by people who are not paid to be scientists and we can also exclude anyone with an advanced degree who is actually working in his or her field of expertise.
Oceanographers, for example, often need ship time, which costs a lot of grant money. Almost all scientists need modern equipment, a large part of which is purchased from grants. The days when science was done by aristocrats from wealthy families using their own money is long gone. Doing pure theory does not require much equipment, but theoreticians, like Einstein, who started doing science on the side while working in a patent office, are also very rare. A big chunk of grant money goes to training students, including undergraduates and graduate students as well as postdocs. Without grants, the training of young scientists comes to halt.
Opinions have no basis in science. The opinions of experts, politicians and the public do not matter for scientific debates, only peer reviewed publications really count. (Of course opinions matter a lot in politics and policy decisions).
Some people on this blog seem to think that scientific articles are “opinions.” This is completely false. Articles in scientific journals are the presentation and analysis of data, observations, experiments and models. Sometimes journal articles also present new theory. Exaggerated claims or misrepresentation of cited articles is a cause for the rejection of a submitted manuscript. This is why the writing in scientific articles is very cautious and precise and why sections should not be quoted out of context.
I completely agree that the media, environmentalists and politicians often simplify, dramatize and exaggerate scientific results and conclusions. This is why you should read the original scientific studies described in scientific journals. Review articles that weigh the evidence of the publications of a field of research without presenting new data are also useful, especially when you don’t have the time to read all of the original studies or when you want to decide which of the original studies to read.
ScienceDaily (Nov. 26, 2008) — University of Chicago scientists have documented that the ocean is growing more acidic faster than previously thought. In addition, they have found that the increasing acidity correlates with increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a paper published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Nov. 24.
… The new study is based on 24,519 measurements of ocean pH spanning eight years, which represents the first detailed dataset on variations of coastal pH at a temperate latitude—where the world’s most productive fisheries live.
“The acidity increased more than 10 times faster than had been predicted by climate change models and other studies,” Wootton said. “This increase will have a severe impact on marine food webs and suggests that ocean acidification may be a more urgent issue than previously thought, at least in some areas of the ocean.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081124141053.htm
This is the latest, “best available” science. Note that the rate of change is 10 times, not 100 times. Note that the base rate for comparison is a MODEL!!!!! Note that “the first detailed dataset” is 8 years long, not 100 years, not 1,000 years, not a million years.
This has all the hallmarks of junk science: inflammatory conclusions, inferences expanded far beyond the limits of the data, based on a model no less, and used by professional alarmists as justification for inducing panic.
Every point can be easily refuted: historical rates of pH change are unknown, correlation is not causation, ocean acidification cannot be due to atmospheric CO2 based on simple chemistry, the dataset is limited in time and location, and the postulated “urgency” is pure speculation designed to induce political hysteria.
So too, coral reef bleaching is blown completely out of proportion. It is limited to certain specific locations, causal factors are unknown, correlations with postulated factors are weak, and there is no historical data for comparison.
Oceanic carbon fixation occurs everywhere in the oceans, from under the polar sea ice to the warmest equatorial waters. Plankton, diatoms, mollusks, echinoderms, and other sea life as well as tropical corals are anabolic calcium carbonate producers. That fundamental life process is not limited to any narrow range of temperature or pH.
It is tragic that “scientists” today must abandon their integrity for research dollars, but it is nothing new and has been happening since the early days of alchemy. Buyer beware.
Robert S (21:11:53) :
“I am sorry you are confused Tall Bloke, but as many have pointed out here (Bill D, Peter, Marcus), acidification is any drop in pH regardless of whether it starts out as alkaline, neutral, or acidic. You can call it what you like, but acidification will remain the correct–and thus, perfectly acceptable– term.”
Many here have pointed out that acidification in not any drop in ph, as well. I’d say because of that your response above shows that you are confused.
How about the terms in this article, correct or not with regard to “acidity” and “acidic”?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081124-acidic-oceans.html
“oceans more acidic”
“the acidity increased”
“the increase in acidity”
“30 percent rise in ocean acidity”
Do you think “acidification” means “to make more acidic”? If so, is a ph of 8 acidic or not? Is 8 more acidic than 9? Does a drop from 9 to 8 signify an increase in *acidity*?
Whoops, I forgot to add that one sure sign of junk science is the use of Principal Component Analysis. No logical inferences or testable hypotheses can be derived from PCA. None. The “dynamics of orthonormal eigenvectors in k dimensions” and similar stat-babble gibberish should be a red flag. Alchemy, not science.
Just because it appears in journal doth not make it science. Sorry to burst anybody’s bubble, but (sadly) most of what appears in science journals is more or less junk.
Robert S (21:11:53) :
I am sorry you are confused Tall Bloke, but as many have pointed out here (Bill D, Peter, Marcus), acidification is any drop in pH regardless of whether it starts out as alkaline, neutral, or acidic.
And I’m sorry you are the willing dupe of propagandists Robert, but as you’ve seen, the journalists and the general public are more easily confused than either of us.
Regardless of the ‘correctness’ of terminology, the aim of science’s pronouncements to the public should always be to inform and educate, not mislead. Sadly, the agenda of the alarmista is to do just that.
On this use of the term acidification. This argument is silly. The term is correct and is used correctly in these these articles whether or not you agree with the content or tone of the articles. It would be silly to use dealkanilinization as an alternative.
Do people find the word acid scary? Yes. But people also find the word chemical scary and tell you they don’t want to eat food with chemicals in it. Simply because these same people do not know what these words mean does not mean they are being used incorrectly.
My favorite rhetorical device when discussing, “natural” or “raw” food is to ask the proponents of such: “What is the definition of an enzyme?” since they are always going on about how these foods have more enzymes or some such. I have never found one that knew what an enzyme actually was or that it would be unlikely to survive the digestive process.
Bill D (23:01:37)
It doesn’t take a “peer reviewed” article to see that ipcc-related temperature reconstructions do/did not involve checking the quality of the surface station sites and the status of the temperature-sensing devices [upon which the reconstructions are based] and are therefore not themselves based upon even the most basic of scientific practices: seeing if/that your equipment is working properly.
And it doesn’t get any better from there for the ipcc-related “science” – including, of course, the idea that a “peer reviewed” article delivers the given truth or at least the current state of knowledge.
jeez (23:31:13) :
On this use of the term acidification. This argument is silly. The term is correct and is used correctly in these these articles whether or not you agree with the content or tone of the articles. It would be silly to use dealkanilinization as an alternative.
The effect is really like discussing the angels on the head of a pin. It is the angels that catch the imagination.
Or, “the sky is falling” was a good description for “Chicken Little”, because something fell from above, that was her definition of sky. Now with good PR linguistics she could defend herself and all her followers.
Jeez,
I don’t think it is silly. I’ve read through dozens of articles, including journal articles that use the word. All seem to use acidification to refer to a process resulting in an acidic solution. The only discipline that appears to use the word to describe a change in ph is connected with global warming.
http://depts.washington.edu/mpanews/MPA103.htm
“A lesser-known impact of the rise in carbon dioxide levels will be “ocean acidification”, a term coined just five years ago.”
My first post referred to the Nature article of five years ago. Now perhaps because a new term was coined and is used by AGWers means the usage is “correct”.
I happen to think it not correct, bad word usage, misleading, and that it was coined to be used as a tool to frighten. I was, until I found out that that the oceans are not acidic, nor is there any indication that the *oceans* could ever be acidic. I don’t know much chemistry, but am not scared of the word.
Twaddle. The only thing peer reviewed publications matter for is academic promotion. Most of them are never read by anyone except their authors.
What matters in scientific debates is understanding how and why things work. Brains and honest and diligent studies are what count and it doesn’t matter a fig how the results are disseminated.
It would be silly to use dealkanilinization as an alternative.
No, it would be honest.
It would be silly to use dealkanilinization as an alternative.
No, it would be honest – preferably spelt right.
From “thefreedictionary.com”
a·cid·i·fy (-sd-f)
tr. & intr.v. a·cid·i·fied, a·cid·i·fy·ing, a·cid·i·fies
To make or become acid.
You have NOT “acidified” anything until you bring it’s pH BELOW 7. In fact, if you are adding acid and the buffer’s pH is going down, you could just as easily say I’m “neutralizing” it, which would be true if you stopped at 7. Calling the process of decreasing the pH of a solution “acidification” is an example of changing the meaning of a word to advance a specific agenda.