Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’m a long-time ocean devotee. I’ve spent a good chunk of my life on and under the ocean as a commercial and sport fisherman, a surfer, a blue-water sailor, and a commercial and sport diver. So I’m concerned that the new poster-boy of alarmism these days is sea-water “acidification” from CO2 dissolving into the ocean. Heck, even the name “acidification” is alarmist, because sea water is not acid, nor will it every be. What we are seeing is a slight reduction in how alkaline the sea water is.
There is a recent and interesting study in GRL by Byrne et al., entitled “Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean“. This study reports on the change in ocean alkalinity over a 15 year period (1991-2006) along a transect of the North Pacific from Hawaii to Alaska. (A “transect” is a path along which one measures some variable or variables.) Here is the path of the transect:
Figure 1. Path (transect) used for the measurement of the change in oceanic alkalinity.
I love researching climate, because there’s always so much to learn. Here’s what I learned from the Byrne et al. paper.
The first thing that I learned is that when you go from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water becomes less and less alkaline. Who knew? So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska … you didn’t notice the change from the “acidification”? You didn’t have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity?
Well, the sea creatures didn’t notice either. They flourish in both the more alkaline Hawaiian waters and the less alkaline Alaskan waters. So let’s take a look at how large the change is along the transect.
Changes in alkalinity/acidity are measured in units called “pH”. A neutral solution has a pH of 7.0. Above a pH of 7.0, the solution is alkaline. A solution with a pH less than 7.0 is acidic. pH is a logarithmic scale, so a solution with a pH of 9.0 is ten times as alkaline as a solution with a pH of 8.0.
Figure 2 shows the measured pH along the transect. The full size graphic is here.
Figure 2. Measured ocean pH from the surface down to the ocean bottom along the transect shown in Figure 1.
The second thing I learned from the study is that the pH of the ocean is very different in different locations. As one goes from Hawaii to Alaska the pH slowly decreases along the transect, dropping from 8.05 all the way down to 7.65. This is a change in pH of almost half a unit. And everywhere along the transect, the water at depth is much less alkaline, with a minimum value of about 7.25.
The third thing I learned from the study is how little humans have changed the pH of the ocean. Figure 3 shows their graph of the anthropogenic pH changes along the transect. The full-sized graphic is here:
Figure 3. Anthropogenic changes in the pH, from the surface to 1,000 metres depth, over 15 years (1991-2006)
The area of the greatest anthropogenic change over the fifteen years of the study, as one might imagine, is at the surface. The maximum anthropogenic change over the entire transect was -0.03 pH in fifteen years. The average anthropogenic change over the top 150 metre depth was -0.023. From there down to 800 metres the average anthropogenic change was -0.011 in fifteen years.
This means that for the top 800 metres of the ocean, where the majority of the oceanic life exists, the human induced change in pH was -0.013 over 15 years. This was also about the amount of pH change in the waters around Hawaii.
Now, remember that the difference in pH between the surface water in Hawaii and Alaskan is 0.50 pH units. That means that at the current rate of change, the surface water in Hawaii will be as alkaline as the current Alaskan surface water in … well … um … lessee, divide by eleventeen, carry the quadratic residual … I get a figure of 566 years.
But of course, that is assuming that there would not be any mixing of the water during that half-millennium. The ocean is a huge place, containing a vast amount of carbon. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatonnes of carbon in the form of CO2. The ocean contains about fifty times that amount. It is slowly mixed by wind, wave, and currents. As a result, the human carbon contribution will not stay in the upper layers as shown in the graphs above. It will be mixed into the deeper layers. Some will go into the sediments. Some will precipitate out of solution. So even in 500 years, Hawaiian waters are very unlikely to have the alkalinity of Alaskan waters.
The final thing I learned from this study is that creatures in the ocean live happily in a wide range of alkalinities, from a high of over 8.0 down to almost neutral. As a result, the idea that a slight change in alkalinity will somehow knock the ocean dead doesn’t make any sense. By geological standards, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently quite low. It has been several times higher in the past, with the inevitable changes in the oceanic pH … and despite that, the life in the ocean continued to flourish.
My conclusion? To mis-quote Mark Twain, “The reports of the ocean’s death have been greatly exaggerated.”
[UPDATE] Several people have asked how I know that their method for separating the amount of anthropogenic warming from the total warming is correct. I do not know if it is correct. I have assumed it is for the purposes of this discussion, to show that even if they are correct, the amount is so small and the effect would be so slow as to be meaningless.
[UPDATE] WUWT regular Smokey pointed us to a very interesting dataset. It shows the monthly changes in pH at the inlet pipe to the world famous Monterey Bay Aquarium in central California. I used to fish commercially for squid just offshore of the aquarium, it is a lovely sight at night. Figure 4 shows the pH record for the inlet water.
Figure 4. pH measurements at the inlet pipe to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Inlet depth is 50′ (15 metres). Light yellow lines show standard error of each month’s measurements, indicating a wide spread of pH values in each month. Red interval at the top right shows the theoretical pH change which the Byrne et al. paper says would have occurred over the time period of the dataset. Photo shows kids at the Aquarium looking at the fish. Photo source.
There are several conclusions from this. First, the sea creatures in the Monterey Bay can easily withstand a change in pH of 0.5 in the course of a single month. Second, the Byrne estimate of the theoretical change from anthropogenic CO2 over the period (red interval, upper right corner) is so tiny as to be totally lost in the noise.
This ability to withstand changes in the pH is also visible in the coral atolls. It is not widely recognized that the pH of the sea water is affected by the net production of carbon by the life processes of the coral reefs. This makes the water on the reef less alkaline (more acidic) than the surrounding ocean water. Obviously, all of the lagoon life thrives in that more acidic water.
In addition, because of the combination of the production of carbon by the reef and the changes in the amount of water entering the lagoon with the tides, the pH of the water can change quite rapidly. For example, in a study done in Shiraho Reef, the pH of the water inside the reef changes in 12 hours by one full pH unit (7.8 to 8.8). This represents about a thousand years worth of the theoretical anthropogenic change estimated from the Byrne et al. paper …
The sea is a complex, buffered environment in which the pH is changing constantly. The life there is able to live and thrive despite rapidly large variations in pH. I’m sorry, but I see no reason to be concerned about possible theoretical damage from a possible theoretical change in oceanic pH from increasing CO2.
[UPDATE] I got to thinking about the “deep scattering layer”. This is a layer of marine life that during the day is at a depth of about a thousand meters. But every night, in the largest migration by mass on the planet, they rise up to about 300 meters, feed at night, and descend with the dawn back to the depths.
Looking at Figure 1, this means they are experiencing a change in pH of about 0.4 pH units in a single day … and alarmists want us to be terrified of a change of 0.002 pH units in a year. Get real.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John M says:
June 20, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Once again, we here the precision of 0.001. And yet…
“These data were collected before the practice of purifying indicators was adopted, so a correction for mCP impurities was applied to the 2006 pH data: 0.001 units at pH 7.4, increasing to 0.005 at pH 8.1 [Yao et al., 2007]. ”
So the corrections are greater than the precision?
That’s frequently the case, that’s why we do calibrations, you do know what precision means don’t you?
Caleb- Funding was passed as the Foaram Act “The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring ” in 2009. The Act authorizes appropriations for ocean acidification research for fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, at $14 million, $20 million, and $27 million, and $35 million per year. (And more are in line)
The Foaram Act assumes the reality of ocean acidification. Grants are available to assess the impacts of ocean acidification. Congress has like all environmental laws before it ruled on the science at the lobbying of the NGOs and then academia is paid to justify the ruling. There will be no debate on ocean acidification.
A lot has been written, asked, etc. since my post above. Since it would require quite a bit of writing to answer every point and, well, I’ve got a day job 😉 I’ll address Willis’ posts specifically, since he is the author of the post.
Chris, you are grasping at straws. As I said above, the point is that it is alarmist terminology. It leads people who think the ocean is neutral to be fearful that the ocean is turning into an acid.
Willis, I simply responded to the point you raised. You said that the term “ocean acidification” is incorrect and alarmist. As I said, I think it’s a bit silly to quibble over accepted terminology (e.g., complaining that sea horses aren’t actually horses) on the one hand, and on the other the point you made is simply wrong. Ocean acidification is in fact acidification. The usage is correct. It is also the widely accepted name for this process. If you don’t like the term and want to use another one you can, but complaining about it, just like complaining that people call sea horses “horses” is, to me, silly and just plain a waste of time, effort, and html 😉
This, and your long, long list of nitpicks above (yes, 7.0 is only neutral in pure water at 25°C, and in the ocean it’s about 6.9 … so what?) are generally technically correct and totally meaningless.
That is exactly the point though, isn’t it. As I said above, I wouldn’t nit pick here except that you were (incorrectly) nit picking the term ‘acidification.’ You pick: either we’re nit picking terminology or we’re not. If you don’t want to nit pick over terms when it is uncritical to the discussion, then don’t do so.
The point is simple. The change in oceanic basicity is so small and so slow that it will not affect much of anything.
You’re simply asserting it doesn’t matter based on no evidence whatsoever. In fact much of the experimental data demonstrates that acidification along the lines of what we’re on track to see this century has a number of negative consequences for many organisms. The data show quite explicitly that, in fact, it does affect quite a lot.
In many places, including coral reefs, the ocean sees larger pH changes daily than the total change projected from changing CO2 over the next century.
That’s a red herring: the fact that some marine environments (e.g., many coral reefs) experience substantial daily pH variation around the average does not mean that shifting the average pH lower will have no effect. A lagoon might see daily pH variation from 7.8 to 8.8 with a mean of 8.1. Shifting the entire range down to an average pH of 7.7 will get you a range of 7.5 to 8.5. Sure enough, the experimental data suggests that a lot of reef organisms (many corals, coralline algae, etc.) experience negative consequences from this shift.
Daily, seasonal, and interannual variation in pH are superimposed on the mean. Reducing the mean doesn’t necessarily affect the variability, it shifts the entire pH range down.
You say that:
There is one misconception of yours I do want to clear up, however. You say:
In response to:
No, all of the values above assume that there WILL be mixing. If there were no mixing then the reduction in surface ocean pH would be much larger than those I’ve mentioned above.
And respond that:
You speak in hushed tones about how
All the projections of changes in surface ocean pH, for instance those by Caldeira, Zeebe, and others, assume mixing, both within the surface layer and between the surface and deep sea. If there were no mixing then the only process transporting CO2 into the ocean would be diffusion, and diffusion is incredibly slow over larger distances (meters+). If there were no mixing then the CO2 released to the atmosphere would only be taken up by the very surface layer of the ocean (diffusional boundary layer), which would absorb a very small fraction of the CO2 emitted input because the layer is so thin. Thus the atmospheric concentration would be much higher because so little of the CO2 would be taken up by the ocean, and the surface layer in direct contact with this high CO2 concentration would experience a much larger decline in pH.
Without mixing the pH decline at the surface would be much larger and would penetrate into the ocean extraordinarily slowly. All projections include oceanic mixing.
According to the references I’ve seen, if the atmospheric CO2 were to double instantaneously, the oceanic surface pH would go down by about 0.26, not 0.4.
We’re on track to have doubled preindustrial CO2 (560 uatm) by around mid-century, which would indeed get you about a 0.25 decrease in surface pH (we’ve already had about 0.1 of that). We are on track to see a >0.4 unit decline in pH by 2100, when atmospheric CO2 will be much higher than 560 uatm (on track for >800 uatm).
This is much less than a month’s pH change in the Monterey Bay seawater. But the extra CO2 in the surface would eventually mix throughout the ocean, reducing the atmospheric CO2 and increasing the surface basicity (your preferred term).
Just as above, this is a red herring. Monthly variability in instantaneous pH in Monterrey Bay (or any other location) does not in any way counteract the decline in mean pH. Instead of varying from ~7.8-8.1 with a mean near 7.95 we’d see something more like a range of ~7.5-7.9 with a mean near 7.75.
Over long time scales pH at the surface will rise due in part to oceanic mixing (and redistrubution of the slug of CO2 at the surface) and weathering processes consuming the CO2. However, the decline in pH we’re talking about occurs ASSUMING that oceanic mixing and weathering are occuring the entire time. Over shorter time scales, on the order of a century, oceanic mixing can only moderate the CO2 input so much because a mixing cycle takes on the order of 1000 yrs. Weathering, especially silicate weathering, is much slower still. Yes, eventually the CO2 input will be redistributed by physical processes, and sequestered by geological ones, but all of those effects are very small until long, long after you, me, our kids, grandkids, etc. are long dead.
Geologic data suggests that similarly large CO2 input in the past (e.g., work by Zachos on the PETM) takes tens of thousands of years to dissipate. In 100,000 yrs oceanic chemistry will be pretty well getting back to normal but, well, I’m kinda interested in these next 100,000 yrs (an less).
Yeah, I was wondering that as well … but like I said, I accepted their conclusions purely for the sake of the discussion, to show that even if true they were trivially small.
The above is in response to a suggestion that rainwater input (since rain has a pH of ~4-5) can substantially affect seawater pH. pH is not a conservative property of solutions. Mixing a solution of pH 4 with a solution of pH 8 in equal amounts doesn’t get you a pH of 6. The resultant pH depends on what was in each solution. Mixing rainwater (pH 4.5) with sea water (pH 8.1) in equal amounts will get you a pH of about 7.9. Rainwater has one important effect on seawater pH and that is that rain dilutes seawater, thereby diluting the total alkalinity. The salinity, and therefore total alkalinity, is higher in the subtropics than equatorial and polar regions because evaporation exceeds rainfall there. Hence, pH tends to be a bit higher, but the effect is relatively small (0.03 for a reduction in salinity from 35 to 32 ppt). Regardless, this effect is wholly unimportant in creating a trend of reduced pH across latitudes, at about constant salinity at a given site.
Best,
Chris
Referring to the French paper I cited:
“Ocean uptake of CO2 will help moderate future climate change, but the associated chemistry, namely hydrolysis of CO2 in seawater, increases the hydrogen ion concentration [H+]. Surface ocean pH is already 0.1 unit lower than preindustrial values.
By the end of the century, it will become another 0.3–0.4 units lower under the IS92a scenario, which translates to a 100–150% increase in [H+].
Simultaneously, aqueous CO2 concentrations [CO2(aq)] will increase and
carbonate ion concentrations ½CO223 will decrease, making it more
difficult for marine calcifying organisms to form biogenic calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Substantial experimental evidence indicates that calcification rates will decrease in low-latitude corals, which form reefs out of aragonite, and in phytoplankton that form their tests (shells) out of calcite, the stable form of CaCO3.”
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/orr_nat_05.pdf
Quite honestly, acidification of the ocean liquid/atmosphere interface is the only phenomenon that matters, as nearly all oceanic photosynthesis occurs quite close to this surface boundary. The concern I have is for the phytoplankton that are dependent upon calcification, as the higher carbon dioxide seems to mess with the production of aragonite & calcite.
This is the only aspect of AGW that I can see giving any creedence to (acidification of photosynthetic boundary).
BTW, Willis, I have also worked in commercial fishing out of Gloucester, Mass, Pt. Judith RI & other places.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Thanks, CRS. You say:
Referring to the French paper you cited:
As far as I know, we have absolutely no evidence that models can forecast calcium carbonate saturation in the ocean. If you know of any models whose results have actually been tested in that regard, please let us know.
They also have a nasty habit of making uncited assertions. For example, they say:
How do they know that? They don’t say. As far as I know, there is no global dataset of the “surface ocean pH”. As the Monterey Aquarium figures show, it can vary by half a unit in a month … and they want us to believe that not only do we know the average surface ocean pH today to within a 95% CI of ±.05 units, they also know the pre-industrial surface ocean pH to within the same accuracy? … riiiight …
Next, they say:
But reference 1 doesn’t say that. It says:
And I suspect that the reference 2 is in error. It is a paper on the effect of CO2 on haline concentration in the ocean.
So let’s consider this French paper. Based on models, unreferenced and highly improbable claim of great accuracy in the pre-industrial signal, one reference gives different numbers from those they cite, another reference is likely bad … so as far as I’m concerned, those guys are just blowing smoke. It should have never made it through peer-review process with those kind of claims, but we all know how rigorous that process is.
If what they say is true, and the global oceanic PH has changed by 0.1 units since pre-industrial times, and the ocean is as sensitive to pH changes as folks say … why haven’t we seen the effects of that?
The main problem that I have with all of these oceanic chemistry models and calculations is that they ignore the fact that the ocean is not just a bath of chemicals. It is full top to bottom and brimming over with life.
And life has a nasty habit of driving chemical reactions in all kinds of directions, including the opposite direction of how the reaction might go in a simple bath of chemicals. Simple chemistry would never show that the pH of the water around coral reefs is greater during the day and lower during the night, and is generally lower overall than the surrounding water … but it is. Why? Because coral respires CO2, and is actually a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.
And there’s not a climate model in the world that includes that, or a thousand other life-driven chemical reactions in the ocean.
Derek B says:
June 20, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Derek, that is certainly possible. However, the only measurement that we have is the Bryne paper, which shows a change in pH of about .001 units per year. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to get concerned about that. The Monterey Bay measurements show changes a hundred times that large in less than a month …
In a hundred years, it might (and I emphasize the might) make a change of 0.1 units. Theoretically, we’ve already seen that much change in the last two hundred years … perhaps you could point to the deleterious effects caused by that change?
If you want to be concerned about that, it’s your choice. I prefer to worry about things for which we have actual evidence …
Chris-You state “Without mixing the pH decline at the surface would be much larger and would penetrate into the ocean extraordinarily slowly. All projections include oceanic mixing.”
How confident are you about the state of our knowledge of ocean mixing such that we can extract a few hundredths of of pH unit AGW signature?
I do agree with your comment on the minimal impact of rain on mid ocean pH.
Chris says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:01 pm
OK, I get it. You don’t think alarmist terms are worth discussing. But people respond to the emotional content of terms. I think that’s important. I could call people who support the AGW hypothesis “sheeple”, and they could call me a “denier”. I don’t call them “sheeple”, because the emotional content of the terms I use is important to me. They continue to call me a “denier”, despite the unpleasant emotional connotations …
I am not “nit-picking”. I am talking about the emotional content of the terms we use to describe something. It is not irrelevant that you don’t think this is important.
A citation to an experiment showing that a change in pH of 0.001 units per year has “negative consequences” would be useful to your argument. In the absence of such a claim, it doesn’t make much sense. If, and it’s a big if, this causes a change in the oceanic pH of 0.1 units over the next century, that is not a large change compared to the daily, monthly, and annual changes we see in the ocean.
Chris, you are just picking numbers. You assume that there will be a shift of 0.4 units. The evidence we have to date (the Bryne paper) shows that we may get a shift of 0.1 units in a hundred years. If the rate double, we may get 0.2 units. Stick with the evidence. Also, saying “the experimental data suggests” means nothing. I’ve provided citations. Your turn. Give us a citation of the damage from a change in pH of 0.1 – 0.2 units …
You are assuming that there is no shift in what you are calling “the mean”. We have no evidence that that is the case. There are likely variations over longer periods as well. It is clear that the El Nino has an effect. It is likely that the PDO has an effect. And the general warming since the Little Ice Age will have had an effect.
Mixing in the ocean is very poorly understood. The Caldeira paper uses a very simplistic model. I suspect that this is one reason why the Bryne results show much smaller changes than the models.
The problem is that the ocean is full of life. The net result is that theoretical chemical calculations don’t work. This is an example.
During the fifteen year period of the Bryne study (1991-2006), the CO2 went up by 26.4 ppmv. The pH went up by about 0.02 units. This is a change in pH of .0005/ppmv CO2. And this in turn means that if the atmospheric CO2 were to go up to 800 ppmv (about a 415 ppmv increase), pH would be expected to go up by about 0.2 units …
As I said, you’ll have to show that that would be an issue. Me, I don’t think that the change in atmospheric CO2 will be as large as the IPCC says, nor do I think that a change in CO2 of 0.2 ppmv (if it were to happen over the next hundred years) will be an issue. Theoretical IPCC calculations say we’ve already seen half of that change (0.1 units) … where is the damage from that?
The mixing in the oceans takes place faster than simple models assume. This is because of life and its myriad processes. But in any case, Bryne results show that the changes we are likely to see will be quite small.
I fear I don’t see the connection between what I said (which was that I didn’t know if the Bryne results were valid, but that since they are all we have I accepted them for the sake of argument) and your response. I was not doubting your statements about rainwater. I was saying that Bryne didn’t think the results were from rainwater, and I was accepting their results for the sake of argument.
My regards to you as well,
w.
Wills I really love your ability to look at a set of numbers and then just generate a random anti-AGW conclusion from them. Inspiring stuff.
“So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska … you didn’t notice the change from the “acidification”? You didn’t have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity?” is just a glib one liner… do you know many scientists who warn of dissolving toenails – who are you arguing with here?
“Well, the sea creatures didn’t notice either. They flourish in both the more alkaline Hawaiian waters and the less alkaline Alaskan waters.”… uh huh.
Surely the logical thing Wilis instead of playing with smoke and mirrors and pwetty gwaphs as you’ve done here, is to actually go though the scientific papers that actually investigate the consequences of ocean acidification, like say http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf
quite frankly your arguments would only be remotely compelling to an audience that knows very little about the actual science.
Phil. “….the PETM mass extinction involved a jump in CO2 and temperature and an associated extinction of about 95% of marine lifeforms. It took ~80,000 years for the oceanic chemistry to stabilize”
I presume you are meaning a jump in atmospheric CO2 from ocean degassing as a result of rise in temperature? Are you suggesting that we are headed for a PETM mass extinction with the comparitively miniscule amount of anthropogenic CO2 we are adding to our atmosphere?
maksimovich says:
June 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Thanks very much for this post, I had not come across the Volk and Hoffert paper about the 3rd pump, which I was unaware of, and which fits the larger picture. This whole discussion was running around in circles over acidity, alkalinity and Ph, by some people who thankfully understood, but also a majority commenting with blissful ignorance. The discussion needed a pointer that acidification of the oceans has far wider and worrying consequences for the oceanic food chain and a larger balance of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere.
I would like to se Willis comment on the results of Hendriks et al. (2010, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86:157). This is a massive meta-analysis of 372 studies in which the responses of 44 different marine species to ocean acidification induced by equilibrating seawater with CO2-enriched air had been actually measured. They found that only a minority of studies demonstrated `significant responses to acidification’ and there was no significant mean effect even in these studies. They concluded that the world’s marine biota are `more resistant to ocean acidification than suggested by pessimistic predictions identifying ocean acidification as a major threat to marine biodiversity’ and that ocean acidification `may not be the widespread problem conjured into the 21st century…Biological processes can provide homeostasis against changes in pH in bulk waters of the range predicted during the 21st century.’
For more on this topic, see:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Phil,
A change in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 390ppm (current level) to 410ppm will not change pCO2 in the atmosphere in any significant way, so this will not change the CO2 concentrations in ocean water in any significant way.
Richard says:
June 21, 2010 at 12:53 am
Phil. “….the PETM mass extinction involved a jump in CO2 and temperature and an associated extinction of about 95% of marine lifeforms. It took ~80,000 years for the oceanic chemistry to stabilize”
I presume you are meaning a jump in atmospheric CO2 from ocean degassing as a result of rise in temperature? Are you suggesting that we are headed for a PETM mass extinction with the comparitively miniscule amount of anthropogenic CO2 we are adding to our atmosphere?
——————-
280 to 394 ppm in 200 years is minuscule? Not even comparatively.
CO2,
The human component of CO2 emissions is about 3%. The rest is natural CO2 outgassing.
Where is your god now?
Phil. says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:53 pm
……But not the same life!
Case in point, the PETM mass extinction involved a jump in CO2 and temperature and an associated extinction of about 95% of marine lifeforms. It took ~80,000 years for the oceanic chemistry to stabilize.
_____________________________________________________________________
Not according to the latest studies
“….Some scientists have attempted to attribute the timing shift to a drop in CO2 but a new study confirms that carbon dioxide levels were not the cause of the climate shift.” Source
New Paper in Science by a group lead by Bärbel Hönisch
Mattb says:
June 21, 2010 at 12:41 am
Bwahahah hahaha this coming from the troll who ADMITS that he doesn’t know enough about the science, admits he doesn’t have the inclination to study it because the IPCC has already done that and he is happy to accept the IPCC conclusions until something better comes along.
You are a troll Mattb. Your day to day livelyhood depends on the AGW scaremongerring because you are a sustainability manager in your day job.
To come on to this site and snipe at a man who actually does some work on the subject, whether you agree with his work or not, exposes you to be the despicable low life troll that you are.
I dare you Mattb, right here and now, publicly, to debate the science instead of sniping like a troll and pointing to links that you probably don’t even understand.
Whats the matter, sick of being intellectually pummelled by the likes of Richard S Courtney, Eddy Aruda and moi at Jo Novas?
You’re out of your league here at WUWT Mattb.
Gail Combs says:
June 21, 2010 at 7:16 am
Phil. says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:53 pm
……But not the same life!
Case in point, the PETM mass extinction involved a jump in CO2 and temperature and an associated extinction of about 95% of marine lifeforms. It took ~80,000 years for the oceanic chemistry to stabilize.
_____________________________________________________________________
Not according to the latest studies
“….Some scientists have attempted to attribute the timing shift to a drop in CO2 but a new study confirms that carbon dioxide levels were not the cause of the climate shift.” Source
New Paper in Science by a group lead by Bärbel Hönisch
I don’t see the relevance of this paper, it’s referring to a period ~55 million years later!
Pat Moffitt says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:28 pm
As someone who has also spent most of his life on, near or in the ocean- my great concern is that ocean acidification will hijack the very real problems we have with our keystone oyster populations. … Despite their keystone status the resources available to address this problem have been paltry at best. (Oysters and disease just don’t make good copy, fund raising or law suits.) Now the oysters will have to find a way to survive the new dictate that all shellfish problems must be caused by CO2.
______________________________________________________________________
I really wish those who are truly concerned with the environment would take a giant step back and look at the whole situation. AGW and various environmental alarms are used to drive hidden agendas that put big bucks into the wealthy’s pockets. This means the REAL problems are starved for funding while the likes of Mike Mann grab the grants and pi$$ the money away on mock science used to generate the required propaganda….
I will not insult the ladies of the night by likening them to Mr. Mann and company, the ladies at least give value for the dollar spent. Perhaps traitor is the better word since the money is used to damage those it came from.
Gail Combs says:
June 21, 2010 at 7:16 am
Hey Gail. I don’t know why you even bothered replying to Phil about the PETM.
The PETM event is still being hotly debated. No one knows what happened.
The pointers currently are to volcanic eruptions and/or bollide collisions. CO2 being the cause seems to only come from rabid alarmists like Andrew Glikson.
Proxy resolutions being in the order of million years +, there is no way they can assign cause to CO2
Richard says:
June 21, 2010 at 12:53 am
Phil. “….the PETM mass extinction involved a jump in CO2 and temperature and an associated extinction of about 95% of marine lifeforms. It took ~80,000 years for the oceanic chemistry to stabilize”
I presume you are meaning a jump in atmospheric CO2 from ocean degassing as a result of rise in temperature? Are you suggesting that we are headed for a PETM mass extinction with the comparitively miniscule amount of anthropogenic CO2 we are adding to our atmosphere?
Since in order to make this post you must have seen the post I was replying to, why would you make such a stupidly false statement?
Willis, thanks for your feedback re: French article! I was in a bit of a rush, and it was the best I could post without access to my Univ of ILL computer (I have full access to PubMed, etc.)
The real value of the French paper is not so much their predictions, but discussions of biological plausibility. The problem with CO2 acidification in the ocean is that it occurs at the atmosphere/surface water boundry, where photosynthesis and calcite production are most active. The French point out some interesting findings in regards to observed changes in biota.
Not sayin’ that this is a reason for cap & trade, I’ve studied the relationship between CO2 and the oceans since, well, 1974, when Collinvaux discussed it in an env. science text! However, to me, this has the gold-standard of biological plausibility = COULD happen under the right conditions of time & concentration.
I watched the Georges Bank fishery disappear before my eyes in the early 1980’s, and the Atlantic menhaden industry is disappearing as we type….so I get a bit protective of the seven seas! Of the plethora of ills associated with fossil carbon, oceanic acidification is at least plausible. The rest, including runaway Venus effect? Bah!
Phil. says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:53 pm
But not the same life!
Case in point, the PETM mass extinction involved a jump in CO2 and temperature and an associated extinction of about 95% of marine lifeforms. It took ~80,000 years for the oceanic chemistry to stabilize.
Phil,
we have so much problem with near-past data and we know so little about, even 1700s and 1800s facts.
you are willing to take a “glorified speculation about PETM extinction” as absolute truth?
Thanks for the reference, Mattb. This looks like an important piece in the acidification argument.
However, Dana Royer et al, in GSA Today March 2004 (v. 14 no 3, p4ff), and (solo) in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 2006 (v. 70: 5565-75) cite estimates that CO2 concentrations were in excess of 500 ppm and often in excess of 1000 ppm for most of the last 500M years. During much of the Paleozoic, the point estimates (with a huge error band) run about 4000 ppm, while the Mesozoic ran mostly 1000-2000 ppm (with a big error band). The only times it has been comparable to pre-1950 levels have been glacial periods — the Neogene and the late-Carboniferous-Permian glacials.
What bothers me is that if shell-critters like pteropods can’t survive in such “acidic” environments, how did all the world’s limestone get formed? Was it all during the Carbo-Permian cold spell and the Neogene? Or is it only aragonite shells that are at issue (versus calcite shells)?
Also, the Orr article you cite provides photos of a pteropod shell suffering shell dissolution in water that was “undersaturated” with respect to aragonite. Was this undersaturation achieved by adding CO2, or by means of a stronger acid like HCl? (Willie Soon claims that such experiments commonly use HCl.) And even though the pteropods studied remained alive, they conclude that they would not expect it to survive under such conditions. This does not seem to follow.
According to Wiki, pteropods probably evolved during the Paleocene, when CO2 levels were still quite elevated according to Royer’s estimates. How could this have happened?
Hey Baa (pardon the informality),
Every so often you have to give Phil a bit of encouragement to let him know that his stuff is being read. He’s a dedicated little troll, active on every thread, 24/7, so I take him as a litmus test of how badly the warmologists are doing. On most of the other blogs he’d have some chance of success, but unfortunately for him, he’s been assigned to WUWT because it’s the largest threat to the boondoggle, and poor old Phil, even with his faults, is likely the best they’ve got. If he ever stops posting here, I’ll start to worry that they’ve found a new secret weapon. ☺ ☺
/dr.bill