Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On December 5, the PBS News Hour showed a segment titled “Endangered Coral Reefs Die as Ocean Temperatures Rise and Water Turns Acidic,” with Hari Sreenivasan reporting. The story discussed the recent loss of Florida coral reefs and the possible impact on recreation and tourism if reef degradation continues. But PBS wrongly told viewers that reef degradation was due to warmer ocean temperatures and “ocean acidification,” both allegedly caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. Sreenivasan concluded with, “Time that maybe is running out for coral reefs in Florida and elsewhere.”
Scientists, environmental groups, and the United Nations promote the fear of ocean acidification. According to claims, man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the oceans and converted into carbonic acid, thereby changing the chemical balance of the oceans. The basic concept of acidification is correct, but hugely exaggerated.
The PBS segment is wrong in several ways. First, while today’s temperatures are the warmest in the last 400 years, oceans were warmer still during the Medieval Warm Period ten centuries ago. Peer-reviewed studies found that both the Gulf of Mexico and nearby Sargasso Sea were warmer about 1000 AD than at present. These warm temperatures were due to natural climatic changes of Earth―not man-made emissions. Caribbean reefs adapted to these warm seas to remain with us today.
Second, the segment paints a misleading picture of carbon dioxide entering the oceans, without providing perspective for the viewer. Sreenivasan interviews scientist Chris Landon who states, “And it’s enough railroad cars stacked end to end to wrap around the earth seven times. That’s how much carbon is going into the ocean every single year.” This sounds alarming, unless you know that the oceans absorb and release about 90 times that amount of CO2 every year from the atmosphere naturally. In addition, carbon dioxide is absorbed by vast deposits of limestone rock in the ocean floor, removing it from sea water.
Third, the oceans are alkaline, not acidic. We’re discussing a reduction in alkalinity. Solutions are measured as acidic or alkaline (basic) on a logarithmic 14-point scale, called the pH Scale. Battery acid has a pH of about one, while the base lye has a pH as high as thirteen. Milk is slightly acidic, as are most of the foods we eat.
Measured in the open ocean, sea water is alkaline, with a pH of about 8.2. According to computer models, doubling of atmospheric CO2 would decrease ocean pH to about 7.9, still basic, but less so. The concern is that this change would destroy the coral reefs by dissolving the carbonate shells and skeletons of reef creatures. Sreenivasan states, “Acidification acts a lot like osteoporosis does in humans. But in marine animals, it makes their shells and skeletons brittle. The more acidic the water, the harder it is for corals to grow their skeletons.”
But, empirical evidence does not show it harder for today’s marine animals to grow their shells. A study of corals at the Great Barrier Reef shows that shell calcium growth rates today are about 25 percent higher than 300‒400 years ago when both ocean temperatures and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were lower.
Scientists still know little about the alkalinity of today’s ocean or the oceans of past centuries. Ocean pH varies by depth, becoming less basic as one goes deeper. It varies by latitude from the equator to the poles. It varies by location, such as the open ocean, coral reef, or kelp bed.
But the PBS segment ignores this uncertainty and implies that the rate of change in ocean pH is alarming. Dr. Langdon states, “What’s really and completely unique about what’s going on now is the rate of change. And that’s what is so difficult for organisms.”
However, evidence shows that a high rate of change in ocean alkalinity is natural. A 2011 study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography found large variations in ocean pH by day, week, and month. Changes in some locations were as high as 0.35 units over the course of a day, higher than computer models are predicting for the next century.
Scuba divers know that reef creatures already experience acidic conditions near CO2 vents in the ocean floor. These vents bubble CO2 gas amidst coral reefs and grassy ocean pastures in millions of locations. Fish and reefs appear to be doing quite well near these CO2 vents.
The coral reefs in the Caribbean and other seas may be endangered due overfishing, chemical pollution, and human abuse. But let’s not blame reef degradation on misguided fears about global warming.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I lived in Florida 40 years ago. The reefs were dying, then, and the villains were slurp-gun toting divers who were taking all the fish to their salt-water aquariums, where most of them promptly died. It was easier to replace them than to manage the aquarium water quality. If that didn’t kill them, the outfalls of untreated or insuffficiently treated sewage and lawn chemicals would. The reefs promptly died when the fish were eliminated. That plague was spreading rapidly as the population exploded. So, should you take the CO2 story seriously? Nope.
NPR also did a story about the shellfish industry in Puget Sound, which oddly enough has been declining as the population of the surrounding area explodes. There is also upwelling of heavily carbonized deep water, but I would be pretty suspicious of the former situation. I suspect the nonsense drums are being beaten again.
PBS spreads alarm, agree.
Misinformed? Disagree
Their behaviour to date indicates intention to mislead.
Our preening media, keeps telling us how smart they are.
How if we were just better educated, we would concur with their beliefs.
As they claim they can not be mistaken, therefore they be malicious.
At this point in the climate alarm scam, the choice is stark, either or both, incompetent – criminal..
Coral disease
About 30 diseases of corals have been recognised since they were first discovered more than 30 years ago. There is still little known about the causes and effects of coral disease although diseases of coral can be caused by bacteria, fungi, algae and worms.
Coral disease has a major impact on Caribbean reefs, where 80% of coral has been lost to disease in the last 20 years.
Apparently no one at PBS has access to Google.
Concerning heat guns, the water you warmed evaporated away! Air at 80 F, for instance, can heat water at 79 F, by conduction, without much evaporation. “Surface tension” does not affect heat transfer. Put a drop of detergent in your water, release most of the tension, try again. Turn your heat gun down low, raise it up a couple of feet, try again. There are no exceptions to the Second Law!!!
Well the climate people got lots of money so why not oceanographers?
Seems to me like several things are missing in the PBS contentions. As I understand their argument, (1) the climate is warming, (2) CO2 is causing warming, (3) increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 going into the ocean, (4) increasing CO2 in the ocean is causing it to become acid (less alkaline), (5) the increasing acidity is killing coral reefs. Let’s look at each of these contentions:
(1) The climate is warming. Well, no warming over the past 16 years and the climate has been warming and cooling for millions of years—two periods of warming this century (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and 25 times since 1480 AD without increased CO2. The climate has been warmer than present over about 90% of the past 10,000 years and coral reefs thrived. So the only argument here is so what?
(2) The amount of global warming that can be cause by increased CO2 is insignificant. The CO2 composition of the atmosphere has changed only 0.008% since 1950 and CO2 accounts for only about 3% of the greenhouse gas effect (95% is from water vapor, which is not increasing).
(3) It’s not that simple—atmospheric and oceanic CO2 exchange CO2 depending on temperature. The ocean puts 90 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than human emissions. The warmer the temperature, the more CO2 goes from the ocean into the atmosphere. So even if global warming was being caused by CO2, warming of the oceans would cause them to lose CO2, not gain it.
(4) So far, I haven’t seen any data that shows significant increase in the level of oceanic carbonic acid as a result of increased CO2. The spatial and temporal variation of oceanic pH seems to be greater than any systematic difference in recent years. Where is the data to support this assumption?
(5) Coral reefs survived 10,000 years of global temperatures higher than now and temperature drives the CO2 balance in water, not atmospheric CO2 levels.
Have I missed something or was the PBS program just another exercise in dogmatic stupidity?
@Robert barclay
Ok, the
acidificationpH reduction of seawater comes from the increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere not any supposed warming. Actually, the higher the seawater temperature the lower the CO2 solubility.Jimbo has it exactly correct. The 2010 cold weather killed so many fish in all the waterways, ponds, rivers and in near ocean water that carcasses were everywhere along the shore, and there was a lot of concern about the impact to fishing. Additionally, a lot of coral was killed, and there was some acknowledgement of that in scientific literature.
2010 was one of three very cold winters (in a row) that we experienced here that killed trees and other plants that had been in place for years.
It is important for folks who are not local to note that the water temperature in the near shore regions of Florida can range from the low 60s to near 90F during the course of the year. Commentary from the wildlife folks said the cause of the mortality was not the absolute temperature, but the speed with which it dropped, and the length of time it stayed cold.
Gerry Parker
I’m sure that back in the stone Age when I studied engineering there was some theory that as water warmed dissolved gases were emitted, not absorbed, Dalton’s Law or something like that…
Here’s a link to a funny picture of a 400-pound guy wearing an “I Beat Anorexia” T-shirt:
s27.photobucket.com
Oops–make that link: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_84ijlM83vuQ/TG6cTg_s6qI/AAAAAAAAA7I/nK3ZwpJXCWc/s1600/anorexia.jpg&imgrefurl=http://richmanramblings.blogspot.com/2010/08/i-beat-anorexia.html&usg=__MB5m5U1ep0wZQ-TNMSyl2dMOXw0=&h=346&w=360&sz=21&hl=en&start=9&sig2=pFL7KgsA1kF9AXXCzH3P6g&zoom=1&tbnid=zMDKBuMjPRnZ_M:&tbnh=116&tbnw=121&ei=Hh7KUIXeOI3wigL3m4FI&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522I%2Bbeat%2Banorexia%2522%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divns&itbs=1
REPLY: next time try tinyURL.com
I have often commented the following on supposed ocean acidification by CO2.
If you do the maths, you will find at the current rate of absorption, the CO2 content of the oceans will increase by around one part per million over the next century.
Now that’s a figure to be really alarmed about!!!
This is an entirely contrived doomsday scenario. Saltwater aquarists often add CO2 to their seawater in order to increase calcification and growth. This is analogous to the practice of greenhouse growers directing the exhaust from their gas and wood heaters into the greenhouse to increase growth rates by up to 80%.
See: Atkinson, M.J., Carlson, B.A. and Crow, G.L. 1995, “Coral Growth in High-Nutrient, Low-pH Seawater: A Case Study of Corals Cultured at the Waikiki Aquarium, Honolulu, Hawaii,” Coral Reefs 14, no. 4, pp. 215–223, http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2554037454q13wp
richard telford says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:58 am
….At last, something that can be agree upon. Especially if we agree that CO2 is a chemical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And so are YOU! The only thing not made of chemicals is the vacuum in space and that is debatable since there is some matter just not very much.
richard telford says: @ur momisugly December 13, 2012 at 5:58 am
… At last, something that can be agree upon. Especially if we agree that CO2 is a chemical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are times I would really like to dump all the people who hate ‘chemicals’ into a completely chemical free environment.
And yes I am a chemist.
I posted this in Tips and Notes, on Nov 28th:
Folks,
Our lame Governor from Washington state has just committed WA citizens to even greater expenses to control CO2, as it is ‘causing the acidification of our Puget Sound waters and threatening our shellfish resources with extinction’. This means more ‘blue ribbon’ committees spending more tax payer dollars setting up government/university/NGO research groups to spread even more of the taxpayer dollars around getting selective data to support their foregone conclusions.
1) http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2012502655_acidification01.html
2) http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/11/27/gov-gregoire-addresses-water-acidity.html
3) http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/nov/27/governor-calls-for-action-to-fight-acidification/
4) http://crosscut.com/2012/11/27/puget-sound/111701/state-tackle-ocean-acidification-global-warming/
First, we found it in the air. Then, we found it in the water! Soon we’ll all be exhaling this CO2 pollution!!! Oh, the humanity……..”
Ugh! Think of this as pHase II, in the mainstreaming of the “CO2 is BAD!” meme.
MtK
Ca leached from Feldspars and certain clays into the oceans will cause sequestation of CO2. Feldpsars and ca ricj clays are very common mineras.l In many warm areas , seas are saturated with Ca CO3 with extensive CacO3 on sea bed. Excess CO2 in form of carbonic acid will react with the CaCO3 and be neutralised. pH of water can vary due to heating, cooling and photosynthesis (n highest value I have seen is pH 9). Unless one knows natural variability, changes of pH less than 0.5 are fairly meaningless.
James Ard says:
December 13, 2012 at 6:22 am
They are doubling down on the rate of change argument. That’s risky, as things may not keep going their way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They have Obummer and the US EPA to push through the changes they want. All the hype is to make sure the Sheeple are too brainwashed to notice they are being fleeced big time… AGAIN.
More than 100 bills, resolutions, and amendments focusing on climate change have been introduced in the U.S. Congress during its current term (2011 – 2012). The information on what the EPA is upto is HERE. (Well worth the read because it is from a Climate Solutions lobbying group)
They are very well aware that the time to push through all this crap is quickly running out.
A Link listing all the news on winter storms that does not make it into the MSM.
The reason for the Carbon(Dioxide) scapegoating:
H. L. Mencken had it right. “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
Michael Moon says:
December 13, 2012 at 8:39 am
Coral disease
About 30 diseases of corals have been recognised since they were first discovered more than 30 years ago. There is still little known about the causes and effects of coral disease although diseases of coral can be caused by bacteria, fungi, algae and worms.
Coral disease has a major impact on Caribbean reefs, where 80% of coral has been lost to disease in the last 20 years.
…………………………………………..
As Michael Moon says a lot of research establishes bacterial or viral diseases have played a part in coral reef decline, much of that since the 70’s.
Interesting correlation in the growth of shipping, both tourist and fishing, since then that move from one ocean to another. Caribbean cruise ships may work the Alaska tours as the seasons change. Antarctic cruise ships transfer to the Arctic for that summer season. Fishing rustbuckets plunder one fishing area then move to another. Whaling fleets move from Japan to the southern oceans. We do not yet fully understand viruses and the effect of ships transferring them from an area where the particular strain is benign to where it may be virulent. Perhaps they transfer variant strains from one eco-system to another where they attack the corals, but in time immune or surviving corals recover. This may account for recovery of corals where major bleaching has occurred.
richardscourtney says:
December 13, 2012 at 7:23 am
richard telford:
You say in your post at December 13, 2012 at 5:58 am
“Third, the oceans are alkaline, not acidic.”
Gosh, I never knew that.
That is not surprising because the rest of your post displays similar ignorance.
Please tell why you wish to display that you know nothing about the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh it is even funner than that. Click on his name richard telford it states:
You can follow from that.
I am continually amazed at how narrow the training is in various disciplines. I found as an undergrad I knew enough chemistry to do breakthrough research in geology only because the PhD Geologists had such crappy training in chemistry. I had Dr. Rane L. Curl (Karst) breathing down my neck to continue the research.
highley7 says:
Jimbo says:
These facts are unfortunately irrelevant. It is not the atmospheric level of CO2 that determines the pH of the oceans but how fast it changes. This is because there are processes such as that mentioned in this post (“carbon dioxide is absorbed by vast deposits of limestone rock in the ocean floor, removing it from sea water”) that act to restore pH but unfortunately the timescale for them to do so is on the order of something like 10,000 years and we are significantly changing CO2 levels on the timescale of a century. Hence, these buffering processes simply can’t keep up.
If you want to see a recent talk on ocean acidification from one of the experts, here is Ken Caldeira’s talk at the AGU meeting last week: http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/gc44c-special-lecture-in-ocean-acidification-consequences-of-excess-carbon-dioxide-in-the-marine-environment-video-on-demand/
I guess corals don’t like the cold either. Why do they always insist on global warming being the cause of Florida coral decline when there is plenty of reasons to point at other causes?
Florida January 2010.
joeldshore says:
December 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm
————-
Hi joeldshore,
what effect do you know that the cold snap of 2010 had on corals in the area?
Please read the following first.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0023047
joeldshore:
At December 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm you say
Really? You know that?
If so then you are the man I have been seeking for over a decade.
I don’t know the cause(s) of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I want to know. You say you do know, so please tell me how you can and do know.
Richard
There’s going to come a day when Alarmists everywhere will get run out of town. People are getting fed up with this nonsense. Haven’t any of them realized the doom-dates have come and gone, again and again and again? As for global warming, we were supposed to be at the tipping point (too late to do anything) by 2012. Now it’s 20 years in the future or 30 or 50, or by 2100. The Great Barrier Reef of Australia was supposed to be completely destroyed by the year 2000 due to acidification – I was told all about the coming loss as a kid way back in the 1970s. They were spreading the scare then, but it’s still there, as healthy as ever.
We need better policies and an adult approach. These idiots have had their cruel fun for literally generations, they have ruined lives, terrified children, and been responsible for now millions of deaths. It’s time to stop them. Governments need to ban extremism and alarmism. If something truly poses a threat, it should be examined properly – openly. Scientifically. But to pop a scare up to gain funding? No. That should be made a crime and the penalty should be severe. They are destroying peoples lives and they MUST be held accountable.
Gail Combs says:
December 13, 2012 at 11:25 am
richard telford says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:58 am
….At last, something that can be agree upon. Especially if we agree that CO2 is a chemical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And so are YOU! The only thing not made of chemicals is the vacuum in space and that is debatable since there is some matter just not very much.
——————————
You have misunderstood my intent. If only you had been less hasty to judge, you would have found that we agree on this point. I was mocking those who would think that CO2 could not be a chemical pollutant, just as I would mock those who think that organic foods are chemical free.
But I fail to see that is so funny with the text “Ecologist with interests in quantitative methods and palaeoenvironments”.
Mods: it would be greatly appreciated if you didn’t censor half my comments.