The fishes and the coral live happily in the CO2 bubble plume

Guest post by David Archibald

Willis Eschenbach’s post on lab work on coral response to elevated carbon dioxide levels, and The Reef Abides, leads to a large scale, natural experiment in Papua New Guinea. There are several places at the eastern end of that country where carbon dioxide is continuously bubbling up through healthy looking coral reef, with fish swimming around and all that that implies.

image

Coral Reef at Dobu Island with carbon dioxide bubbling through it (photo: Bob Halstead)

What that implies is that ocean acidification is no threat at all. If the most delicate, fragile, iconic ecosystem of them all can handle flat-out saturation with carbon dioxide, what is there to worry about?

That lack of a threat is a threat to a human institution though – the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) based in Townsville, north Queensland run by Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

To quote Walter Starck (http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6171:png-coral-reefs-and-the-bubble-bath&catid=99:walter-starcks-blog&Itemid=123) – “A never ending litany of purported environmental threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has maintained a generous flow of funding for several generations of researchers. The “reef salvation” industry now brings about US$91 million annually into the local economy in North Queensland.

Although none of these threats has ever become manifest as a serious impact and all of the millions of dollars in research has never found any effective solution for anything, the charade never seems to lose credibility or support. The popular threat of the moment is ocean acidification from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

So AIMS mounted an expedition to Papua New Guinea to examine the large scale, natural experiment that was a threat to their livelihood. They reported in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/pdf/nclimate1122.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201106) that while the reefs they examined looked healthy, they didn’t like them. The threat has been averted for the moment, but maintaining funding requires constant vigilance.

================================================================

To lend credence to David Archibald’s post, here’s a story on Bob Halstead’s diving website.

THE SHELL GAME

By Bob Halstead

According to Wikipedia “The Shell Game is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is a confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud”.

The shell game has been of particular interest to me after reading a scientific letter “Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification” published in Nature a couple of years ago. Since then there has been a deluge of alarmist warnings on “Ocean Acidification” – including one in the Feb/March issue of Dive Pacific from an organization called the “International Union for the Conservation of Nature” – but no actual reefs destroyed by it, of course.

The letter was illustrated by photographs of eroded shells and predictably concluded that this was due to ocean acidification, caused by too much atmospheric CO2 which Al Gore tells us is caused by bad humans burning fossil fuels to survive and prosper (as he did), instead of buying carbon credits from him and becoming poor.

The reason for my scepticism was my own well-publicised underwater observations at Dobu Island in Milne Bay where CO2 vents bubble through a thriving coral reef. Just maybe, I thought, these people do not a have a clue what they are writing about. So when they approached me to see if they could dive Dobu I said of course, but that I was not interested in cherry picking data to conform to any conspiracy to promote Anthropogenic Global Warming. Interestingly I never heard back from them.

Now we have the astonishing “Climategate” scandal revealing a huge scientific fraud producing the dodgy evidence used by the IPCC and environmental activists to predict Global Apocalypse, and a Copenhagen Treaty more designed to foster World Government than combat pollution. I originally wrote this before the Copenhagen conference so had no idea what a total fiasco and lie-fest it turned out to be.

But I have real news!!

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has, on 1st December 2009, issued a press release titled “In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production”. Here is some of what it says:-

“In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean—causing it to “acidify” —researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.

But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.

“Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them,” said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. “They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said.”

NOTE “the coral” in the previous paragraph. There is more to the news release, and it ends up by saying:-

Since the industrial revolution, Ries noted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.

“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says.  However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.

“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems,” he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”

Having studied Climategate it is not difficult to work out how this amazing and welcome press release actually got published instead of being censored or trivialised, as so many other inconvenient anti-AGW scientific papers and observations have been.

The last line is the key (…we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”). This inclusion was designed to appease the alarmist fanatics, and enable the paper – which is a staggering departure from the usual AGW propaganda – to be published. Brilliant.

Look out! Woods Hole has found a way of beating the Shell Game.

Feb 2010

======================================================================

David Archibald sent another report to me last year by Walter Starck in PDF form, titled: Observations on Growth of Reef Corals and Sea Grass Around Shallow Water Geothermal Vents in Papua New Guinea

He has similar photos not only of Coral and CO2 bubbling up, but of sea grass patches.

image

Dobu I. corals aerated by bubbling CO2

image

One of the numerous smaller bubble streams coming up through lush beds of Thalassia.

He writes:

On 14 February 2010 we visited two geothermal areas in the D’Entrecasteaux Islands, Milne Bay Province, PNG. One is located near the north end of Normanby Island about 30 m S.E. of the outer end of the wharf at the village of Esa’Ala. The other is a well known dive site known as the “Bubble Bath”. It is located about 20 m offshore near the mid-north coast of Dobu Island, an extinct volcano.

At Esa’Ala the area of bubble venting is scattered along the inner edge of a fringing reef which is about 10 -15 m in width. The outside edge slopes steeply into deep water and the inside edge is bordered by grass beds (Thalassia sp.) on silty bottom of mixed reef and volcanic sediments. The bubbling is near continuous small trickles at numerous points scattered amid both grass and coral areas in water depths of 3 – 5 m. The location is sheltered from prevailing wind and wave action.

Both coral and plant growth were unusually luxuriant. In the grass beds small juvenile rabbitfish (Siganus sp.) are abundant feeding on the epiphytic algae growing on the grass blades.

The pH of water samples was measured using a Pacific Aquatech PH-013 High Accuracy Portable pH Meter with a resolution of 0.01 pH. It was calibrated with buffered solutions at pH 6.864 and pH 4.003 immediately before measuring the samples. The Esa’Ala sample was taken immediately adjacent to a Porites coral and about 10 cm from a small bubble stream. The pH was 7.96. A sample from next to a Porites coral at the “Bubble Bath” measured 7.74. This was also about 10 cm from a somewgat larger bubble stream and about 12 m from the main gas vent. A sample next to the main vent measured 6.54. A sample from the open ocean just outside Egum Atoll about 100 Km N.E. of Dobu read 8.23 which is near typical for open ocean in this region.

It seems that coral reefs are thriving at pH levels well below the most alarming projections for 2100. The biggest threat we face isn’t to Barrier Reef tourism. The whole modern economy is founded on cheap abundant energy. High energy liquid fuel is essential to all mobile heavy machinery. Trucks, tractors, trains, ships, planes and earth moving equipment cannot be run on sunbeams and summer breezes. The International Energy Agency along with virtually all oil industry analyst groups now recognise that future global oil supplies are likely to be increasingly tight and more expensive.

==================================================================

Read the full report with more photos here (PDF) Walter Starck on coral and other marine life

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
159 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ferd berple
December 28, 2011 11:29 pm

alcheson says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Unless the ocean has been depleted it’s huge reservoir of undissolved CaCO3, performing the calculations ignoring the buffering component (the undissolved CaCO3) is of little value.
Agreed. Climate scientists need a basic education in inorganic chemistry. You cannot acidify a buffer until you deplete the buffer. Give me a call when you’ve managed to remove the dissolved salts from the ocean. Until that happens you will not turn the oceans acidic. The amount of CO2 required is many times in excess of all known and projected fossil fuel reserves. On the order of a million years of industrial growth.

ferd berple
December 28, 2011 11:38 pm

vigilantfish says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:37 pm
It’s possible the scientists expected some other interaction between the shells of the arthropods and less alkaline seawater with higher CO2 levels.
When you dissolve a shell in acid, that is inorganic chemistry. When life forms a shell in an acid environment, that is called a competitive advantage. Over time, evolution tells us that life with a competitive advantage will replace life that has no such advantage.
With a billion+ years of evolution it should not be a surprise if life is able to turn lemons into lemonade. The life forms that could not are long since extinct.

December 28, 2011 11:41 pm

Though I support smart subsidies all the time, I don’t see the rationale behind the corn subsidy. It seems to be an outdated relic from when the agricultural vote was a necessity. Maybe the federal government should stop spending $25 billion on subsidizing corn and spend more on disease research, education, or frankly anything that has a greater value to the public good.
[REPLY: John, maybe you would like to submit this to the correct thread? -REP]

Climate sceptic outing commission
December 28, 2011 11:54 pm

What pure trash from the usual suspects and why you wouldn’t believe anything served up here.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg does not run the Australian Institute of Marine Science – John Gunn does – http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/about/corporate/corporate-profile-governance.html
What a balls up !
AIMS researchers have already investigated these CO2 vents and found
“We investigated coral reefs, seagrasses and sediments that are acclimatized to low pH at three cool and shallow volcanic carbon dioxide seeps in Papua New Guinea. At reduced pH, we observed reductions in coral diversity, recruitment and abundances of structurally complex framework builders, and shifts in competitive interactions between taxa. However, coral cover remained constant between pH 8.1 and ~7.8, because massive Porites corals established dominance over structural corals, despite low rates of calcification. Reef development ceased below pH 7.7. Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century.”
from http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/pdf/nclimate1122.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201106
The mention that sediment flowing onto the Great Barrier Reef from the rural industries is 5-10x pre-European, significant quantities of fertilzer nitrogen, phosphorus and phytosystem II herbicides doesn’t get a mention. The issue is cumulative stressors..
I think a full retraction is in order.
[SNIP: Stick to the science and leave the ad homs and snark for an audience that appreciates it. -REP]

Bernd Felsche
December 29, 2011 12:35 am

jrwakefield says:

What was that phrase from Jurassic Park? “Life finds a way.”

Hardly surprising, given who wrote the story. Sceptic Michael Crichton. 🙂
NUMQUAM OBLIVISCEMUR MICHAELIS CRICHTONIS

December 29, 2011 1:06 am

alcheson says: December 28, 2011 at 10:10 pm
“What is ignored is
CO2(aq) + CaCO3(s) ——> Ca(+2) + 2HCO3(-).

Absolutely not. That reaction is the whole problem. The dissolution of CaCO3. Fine if it’s mineral limestone. But if it’s from sea critters?
What I think you’re missing is the effect of the solubility product of CaCO3. If you convert carb to bicarb and Ca++ stays the same, CaCO3 will dissolve. There is a reserve of supersaturated aragonite, but that is limited.
And
ferd berple says: December 28, 2011 at 11:29 pm
“Agreed. Climate scientists need a basic education in inorganic chemistry. You cannot acidify a buffer until you deplete the buffer.”

I’m sure climate scientists know more inorganic chemistry than you do. But you need an education on what climate scientists do. These are marine scientists. And adding any acid (with pKa exceeding the buffer pKa) depletes the buffer – moves the equilibrium in the acid direction. That’s how buffers work. In this case the overall effect, after intermediate reactions, is that almost every added molecule of CO2 dissolves a molecule of CaCO3. As I said above, there is a temporary delay due to a reserve of supersaturated aragonite.

Peter Miller
December 29, 2011 1:37 am

Presumably ‘Climate sceptic outing commission’ is an AIMS employee and/or a beneficiary of generous grants.
“We investigated coral reefs, seagrasses and sediments that are acclimatized to low pH at three cool and shallow volcanic carbon dioxide seeps in Papua New Guinea. At reduced pH, we observed reductions in coral diversity, recruitment and abundances of structurally complex framework builders, and shifts in competitive interactions between taxa. However, coral cover remained constant between pH 8.1 and ~7.8, because massive Porites corals established dominance over structural corals, despite low rates of calcification. Reef development ceased below pH 7.7. Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century.”
If you read this statement, you can see there are a number of problems:
1. The sites investigated are ‘cool’ – um…..corals don’t grow all that well in cool water.
2. The sites investigated are ‘volcanic’ – um…….that means the presence of metal sulphides and nasty elements such as antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury, which are deleterious to many life forms.
3. ‘Model predictions’ – as usual, GIGO and pre-determined conclusions.
4. ‘Acidification’ – this assumes ocean acidification will happen on a significant scale in the future, which it definitely will not unless man dramatically increases sulphate and nitrate emissions.
5. ‘Probably….within this century’ – typical alarmist statement, which translated means “won’t happen in my lifetime, so it doesn’t matter what I say”. In other words, this is another instance of: “it is the grants which matter, not the science”.
6. Geological record clearly shows coral reefs will adapt rapidly to climate change, as can be seen over the past 250 million years, or most recently over the past 12-15,000 years (since the end of the last Ice Age), when there was a dramatic increase (~8 degrees C) in average global temperature – see below.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvwmAeL2CPQijD-hUEm9APuL-xLjTI-oMouj-tUE_4gBRuRYf6

David Jones
December 29, 2011 2:12 am

Climate sceptic outing commission says:
December 28, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Is that a new name for Lazyteenager?

John Marshall
December 29, 2011 2:20 am

Corals need CO2 for growth and as food for its algal symbiots that provide the polyps with food. Seagrass photosynthesizes so needs CO2.
CO2 is not the enemy.

December 29, 2011 2:25 am

Looking at all the very simple basic science here, references, links and pertinent anecdotes can I suggest that Dave and Willis write this up, publish it and put an end to ocean acidification for good…Using hydrochloric acid to acidify sea water, then saying look, they dont like it is just another example of the Al Gore and his co2 bottles. Fatally flawed.

Jos Hagelaars
December 29, 2011 2:29 am

Alcheson, December 28,2011 at 10:10 pm
“In reality, it is not the TA that remains essentially constant with increasing CO2 but the pH.”
The eoearth website with the “dandy” calculations is referring to surface seawater. In surface seawater dissolution of CaCO3 will not occur ( omega > 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Calcification ), so they are correct to keep the Total Alkalinity constant.
Despite what you say, the pH in surface seawater is going down as the graph on the eoearth website shows. Another example: pick the “pH comparison” on http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/trends.html
Your overall reaction equation, to be correct with the H2O on the lift site:
CO2(aq) + CaCO3(s) + H2O Ca(+2) + 2HCO3(-)
is not happening in sea surface waters because of the omega > 1.
It occurs at greater depths where the solubility of CaCO3 (different for calcite and aragonite) is higher and therefore omega lower. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the ocean depth at which calcium carbonate shells dissolve to become shallower.
I think Nick Stokes is quite right in December 29, 2011 at 1:06 am, stating that this overall reaction is the main problem for sea critters.

Jos Hagelaars
December 29, 2011 2:32 am

Sorry, the arrow got lost in the reaction equation:
CO2(aq) + CaCO3(s) + H2O -> Ca(+2) + 2HCO3(-)

David L
December 29, 2011 3:48 am

Come on now, this is easily explained.. That’s natural CO2, good, happy, CO2, the stuff that makes plants green, not bad nasty anthropologic CO2, the stuff that destroys the planet. /sarc

Don K
December 29, 2011 5:34 am

Grey lensman says:
December 29, 2011 at 2:25 am
Looking at all the very simple basic science here, references, links and pertinent anecdotes can I suggest that Dave and Willis write this up, publish it and put an end to ocean acidification for good…Using hydrochloric acid to acidify sea water, then saying look, they dont like it is just another example of the Al Gore and his co2 bottles. Fatally flawed.
============
This isn’t “simple basic science”. It’s damn complicated. That’s why there are arguments. But you are dead right about hydrochloric acid. For most things, HCl is a good way to lower the pH of sea water without side affects. That’s because sea water is loaded with Chloride ions and a few more from the hydrochloric acid are unlikely to have much impact. So acidification with HCl seems to be a standard procedure when investigating seawater pH. But it doesn’t work right when dealing with CO2/CaCO3 because CO2, unlike HCl, not only alters the H+ ion concentration, it also alters the Carbonate (CO3–) and Bicarbonate (HCO2-) concentrations of the “system”

December 29, 2011 6:16 am

Your overall reaction equation, to be correct with the H2O on the lift site:
CO2(aq) + CaCO3(s) + H2O Ca(+2) + 2HCO3(-)
is not happening in sea surface waters because of the omega > 1.
It occurs at greater depths where the solubility of CaCO3 (different for calcite and aragonite) is higher and therefore omega lower. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the ocean depth at which calcium carbonate shells dissolve to become shallower.
I think Nick Stokes is quite right in December 29, 2011 at 1:06 am, stating that this overall reaction is the main problem for sea critters.

Anyone who thinks that the puny amount of CO2 we are putting into the air has to explain why life flourished so bountiful when CO2 was TWENTY TIMES today during periods in the recent geological past (200-400myo). Limestone deposits from that era dominates the continents when we had shallow seas. Limestone deposited from biological sources.
Oh, I forgot, the planet is only 30 years old…

Pat Moffitt
December 29, 2011 7:17 am

Nick Stokes,
I’m wondering why marine scientists received next to no funding over the last 50 years while MSX and Dermo decimated shellfish stocks on the East Coast pushing populations to perhaps 1 or 2% of their historic population but now that shellfish can be blamed on fossil fuels- the potential threat to them from CO2 is seen as a crisis and funding is pouring in?
Of the top 25 threats to the ocean’s marine life where would you rank the CO2 “threat’?

Jos Hagelaars
December 29, 2011 7:25 am

@jrwakefield December 29, 2011 at 6:16 am
“Limestone deposits from that era dominates the continents when we had shallow seas.”
As you state there were a lot of shallow seas in that era and in shallow seas CaCO3 will not dissolve, so critters can maintain their calcium based skeleton (omega > 1).
E.g. http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/carboniferous_period.html :
“In the early part of the Carboniferous Period, the Mississippian Epoch, much of North America was covered by warm, shallow seas. The many animals living in these waters contributed their shells to the formation of limestone. There were so many crinoids living in these waters that they make up a big part of the limestone formation.”
The oceans being warm in the Carboniferous also influences the CCD, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_compensation_depth :
“This greater pressure of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to increased dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean mixed surface layer. This effect was somewhat moderated by the deep oceans’ elevated temperatures during this period.”

David L
December 29, 2011 8:27 am

Stoked 1:06am
“I’m sure climate scientists know more inorganic chemistry than you do.”
I wouldn’t bet on it. I have a PhD in physical chemistry. My postdoc advisor was (and is) a brilliant physicist… However his intuition about pure chemistry was a little lacking.

December 29, 2011 8:33 am

I simply MUST take exception to the statement: “Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.”
There is a complicated equilibrium in water between dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2), bicarbonate ion (HCO3-, the biologically available form of dissolved carbon), and carbonate ion (CO3=). The equilibrium is dependent on pH and temperature, but can be simply described by a Principle learned in freshman chemistry classes (at least, those who aren’t daydreaming of scuba diving during the lectures!)
Le Chatelier’s Principle holds that “If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established.”
In this case it means that adding CO2 to water will raise the concentration of bicarbonate ion, and that in turn will raise the amount of carbonate ion in the system. The effect on pH will be negligible because carbon dioxide in water is a weak acid, and bicarbonate is both a weak acid and a weak base. Together they create as a buffer system on the oceanic pH.

Jos Hagelaars
December 29, 2011 8:51 am

Tom Davidson says:
December 29, 2011 at 8:33 am
“In this case it means that adding CO2 to water will raise the concentration of bicarbonate ion, and that in turn will raise the amount of carbonate ion in the system.”
This is not correct, see the link to the eoearth webpage in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/28/the-fishes-and-the-coral-live-happily-in-the-co2-bubble-plume/#comment-846713

oeman50
December 29, 2011 10:36 am

jrwakefield says:
December 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm
=======
And yet life thrives around black smokers with ph less than 3. Likely the place were life started.
What was that phrase from Jurassic Park? “Life finds a way.”
========
Good point, jr. It seems obvious that if life found the environment around a smoker or other subsea volcanic vent unhospitable, they would not locate there. It’s just where a vent emerges and changes the prevailing environment that changes could occur until life adapts again. I did not want that situation misinterpreted by those with an agenda.

Pat Moffitt
December 29, 2011 11:16 am

Nick Stokes,
Science is built on trust. The selection of environmental problems for funding and attention that always seem to fit regulatory self interest leads those of us who have labored for decades in this field to be highly skeptical. I would appreciate your thoughts as asked previously why shell fish are getting so much attention now from the acidification threat and yet for decades their decline as a result of disease and reef destruction were all but ignored. As an example in New Jersey the Dept. of Environ. Protection (DEP) ordered the planting of a disease resistant strain of oysters using private funds because it claimed it couldn’t monitor the possibility that some person might harvest them from unregulated waters. They never explained why they were not concerned with the clams and mussels already there. Then DEP turns around and says we need to be concerned about the proliferation in algae and therefore need to start controlling nitrogen sources – something the oysters do for free. And now we are told that we need to care about the plight of oysters because of acidification? After watching similar things happen again and again you just start to wonder whether this ever had anything to do with improving the quality of our natural resources.

Ged
December 29, 2011 11:46 am

I think it’s important people remember that dissolved CO2 (bicarbonate) is a near neutral pH buffer. Can never make an acidic solution with CO2. In fact, we biologists use CO2 on purpose in incubators to act as a buffer and mitigate the acidifying effects cell cultures have on their medium (which will kill the cells if CO2 is not around to increase the pH and prevent it from acidifying).

Ged
December 29, 2011 11:50 am

Stokes,
You are so wrong, it is painful reading your stuff.
We use direct CO2 gas in culture incubators, where there is no CaCO3 or anything but normal cell media, to PREVENT the pH from becoming acidic. When CO2 dissolves into water, it soaks up hydrogen ions and forms carbonate/bicarbonate. The pH of that is around 6.90 or so. Thus, direct CO2 gas is used to keep cells alive and prevent them from turning their media acidic from cell waste products like lactic acid.

highflight56433
December 29, 2011 11:52 am

“Maybe I don’t understand the mechanism completely, but if the globe is warming, then CO2 solubility goes down in the warming oceans causing CO2 to off-gas from the oceans as seen in Mauna Loa, which in the end cause a reduction in acidity, not an increase. Or do I have that wrong?”
The oceans are well buffered; a lot of acid or alkaloid must be introduced to change the pH of the oceans.