From NOAA’s department of acidic wordsmithing: New study shows Arctic Ocean rapidly becoming more corrosive to marine species
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas could become less hospitable to shelled animals by 2030
New research by NOAA, University of Alaska, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the journal Oceanography shows that surface waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas could reach levels of acidity that threaten the ability of animals to build and maintain their shells by 2030, with the Bering Sea reaching this level of acidity by 2044.
“Our research shows that within 15 years, the chemistry of these waters may no longer be saturated with enough calcium carbonate for a number of animals from tiny sea snails to Alaska King crabs to construct and maintain their shells at certain times of the year,” said Jeremy Mathis, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and lead author. “This change due to ocean acidification would not only affect shell-building animals but could ripple through the marine ecosystem.”
A team of scientists led by Mathis and Jessica Cross from the University of Alaska Fairbanks collected observations on water temperature, salinity and dissolved carbon during two month-long expeditions to the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas onboard United States Coast Guard cutter Healy in 2011 and 2012.
Sampling Arctic waters
These data were used to validate a predictive model for the region that calculates the change over time in the amount of calcium and carbonate ions dissolved in seawater, an important indicator of ocean acidification. The model suggests these levels will drop below the current range in 2025 for the Beaufort Sea, 2027 for the Chukchi Sea and 2044 for the Bering Sea. “A key advance of this study was combining the power of field observations with numerical models to better predict the future,” said Scott Doney, a coauthor of the study and a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
A form of calcium carbonate in the ocean, called aragonite, is used by animals to construct and maintain shells. When calcium and carbonate ion concentrations slip below tolerable levels, aragonite shells can begin to dissolve, particularly at early life stages. As the water chemistry slips below the present-day range, which varies by season, shell-building organisms and the fish that depend on these species for food can be affected.
This region is home to some of our nation’s most valuable commercial and subsistence fisheries. NOAA’s latest Fisheries of the United States report estimates that nearly 60 percent of U.S. commercial fisheries landings by weight are harvested in Alaska. These 5.8 billion pounds brought in $1.9 billion in wholesale values or one third of all landings by value in the U.S. in 2013.
Lowering sensors
The continental shelves of the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are especially vulnerable to the effects of ocean acidification because the absorption of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions is not the only process contributing to acidity. Melting glaciers, upwelling of carbon-dioxide rich deep waters, freshwater input from rivers and the fact that cold water absorbs more carbon dioxide than warmer waters exacerbates ocean acidification in this region.
“The Pacific-Arctic region, because of its vulnerability to ocean acidification, gives us an early glimpse of how the global ocean will respond to increased human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, which are being absorbed by our ocean,” said Mathis. “Increasing our observations in this area will help us develop the environmental information needed by policy makers and industry to address the growing challenges of ocean acidification.”
Go online here to read the research paper, Ocean Acidification in the Surface Waters of the Pacific-Arctic Boundary Regions, in Oceanography
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the paper’s conclusion: “While it is still unclear what ultimate biological impacts will result from
these biogeochemical changes, it is probably safe to assume that they will have detrimental effects on ecosystems that are already under pressure from rising temperatures and other climate-driven stressors”
Science!!
Yep, this is what it has become.
By the way, although it isn’t quoted in the above, the word ‘corrosive’ appears twice on page 5. I actually work with ‘corrosive’ chemicals. They really are corrosive, in that they will “damage and destroy”. Some water that has become less alkaline, well, that would be in my lunchtime drink.
I reverse-osmosis filter my drinking water before I drink it. The system has a re-mineralisation filter on it which turns the water slightly alkaline prior to the tap. Bad gut PH can inhibit beneficial gut bacteria, as can pesticide residues in gmo crops, or even non-gmo crops sprayed with “pre-harvest” glyphosate treatments (like the ‘healthy oat breakfast/snack’ which is soaked in the “probable carginogen” glyphosate (WHO)).
Talk about corrosive!
OK, I feel a rant coming on…
Kitefreak, the stomach provides a pH of around 2.0 which is necessary to digest the food that you eat. I doubt that making your water slightly alkaline has much influence on the pH of that water when it is absorbed after entering the stomach.
The pH of the water that you drink isn’t likely to influence the pH within the intestine since the duodenum neutralizes the very acidic material leaving the stomach. That material is much more acidic than your drinking water could ever be.
So far, all I have seen is baseless speculation that glyphosate is a “probable carginogen [sic].” Glyphosate is expensive. Why would a farmer “soak” his crop in Glyphosate? One of the advantages of glyphosate is that it takes only an extremely small amount to kill most sensitive plants.
Add “corrosive” to the list of scary words such as “acidification, that are being redefined in an attempt to mislead and frighten the public.
From the we don’t know, but it is safe to assume. They obviously like making asses of themselves.
Again if the Oceans were really warming, wouldn’t they be out gassing CO2. (Henry s Law) making them less acidic, wouldn’t Globul Warming then be helping the Oceans.
More fear mongering via bad models. During the Cretaceous when atmospheric CO2 is estimated to have approached 4000, and palm trees grew in Antarctic, calcium carbonate deposits were at a peak, suggesting calcium carbonate shell formers were also at their peak. The Cretaceous period is in fact named for their massive chalk deposits. As atmospheric levels fell towards modern levels during the Cenozoic and the earth cooled, calcium carbonate shell producers diminished as witnessed by shrinking chalk (calcium carbonate) deposits.
It is safe to assume these guys are pulling their future projections about ocean acidification from unsavory parts of their anatomy.
Their intentions are clear. They don’t know but the assume there will be global warming, they assume the oceans will become more acidic, they don’t know but they assume this will harm shell fish. Sure is a lot of don’t knows and assumptions in their science.
First, it is unlikely that CO2 dissolving in the oceans will be able to detectably affect the complex buffer known as seawater.
Second, as CO2 has been 4 to 10 times higher than now during most of the last 600 million years, it is likely that these species will have no problem handling the relatively tiny increase the war mists are panicking over right now. Marine life is much more resilient than they want us to think and survived a much wider range of conditions than we are experiencing today..
Also, maintaining shells in cold water is inherently a dissolution problem as calcium carbonate is more soluble in cold water than warm water. Higher CO2 actually means increased carbonate in the oceans as the long equilibrium from carbonic acid to bicarbonate to carbonate is pushed toward more carbonate by having more CO2. And the protons given off by carbonic acid and bicarbonate cannot affect their own equilibrium. Only an outside source of protons would alter the equilibrium.
Far more than ten timed higher prior to the Permian. The highest RCO2 estimated by Geocarb III is a little above 25 slightly more than 500 MYA. The max during the Mesozoic was about 10, and corals and molluscs flourished. The maximum during the early Cenozoic looks to have been about 4 (ca. 1,600 ppm). The trend since then, including the minor uptick at present, is downward. The obvious conclusion is that without either a reduced green plant mass or and increase in the release of carbon into the atmosphere, a second Permian event is very possible – due to low atmospheric carbon.
considering the the ocean is currently caustic (ph > 7) and most creatures rely on a layer of mucus for protection, you would think they would look forward to a corrosive (ph < 7) environment.
most fresh water on the other hand is corrosive, with ph < 7, yet we don't think twice about drinking it.
Caustic and Corrosive and not very clear terms. They are both relate to damage due to a chemical reaction. These terms also have other figurative meanings. It is true that Acids are referred to as Corrosive and Alkalines are referred to as Caustic. Hence, forgive me as I will use the terms Acid and Alkaline in my reply; if you wish you can replace these terms with the equivalent Caustic/Corrosive terms.
Acids contain H+ ions accepting electrons and most metals have week bonds with electrons; this leads metals to give them up easily; this process is known as rusting. Alkalines has OH- ions and freely donate electrons; not a problem for metals.
The shells of shellfish are composed of Calcium Carbonate. These organisms use a Calcium Carbonate crystal, known as Aragonite, present in water to grow their shells. Aragonite is reactive with acids so an acidic environment reduces Aragonite levels. A reduction of Aragonite in seawater affects the ability of these organisms to form.
Plankton rely highly on Aragonite and lay at the bottom of the food-chain so a reduction in plankton affects higher organisms.
A bit of chemistry on the reaction of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3). For a monoprotic acid (HA), the reaction is:
HA + CaCO3 –> H2CO3 + CaA2 (CaA2 is the salt byproduct where A is dependent on the type of acid salt)
H2CO3 (Carbonic acid) quickly decomposes in water:
H2CO3 –> H2O + CO2
Hence, the complete, balanced, reaction is:
2 HA + CaCO3 –> H2O + CO2 + CaA2
this article is worth the read. explains the calcite compensation depth. There is also an Aragontie Compensation Depth.
http://geology.about.com/od/glossaryofgeology/fl/CCD.htm
It appears that climate science again has the chemistry backwards. CO2 is necessary to create shells:
Calcium Carbonate Minerals in Water
Calcium carbonate chemistry is more complicated when it comes to understanding which polymorph will crystallize out of solution. This process is common in nature, because neither mineral is highly soluble, and the presence of dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) in water pushes them toward precipitating.
http://geology.about.com/od/minerals/fl/calcite-vs-aragonite.htm
[Dupe? .mod]
I wonder how they explain freshwater mussels and freshwater clams.
the amount of calcium and carbonate ions dissolved in seawater, an important indicator of ocean acidification
should be “alkalinization”
I agree with you, but “alkalinization” obviously doesn’t fit the meme they are trying to foster. They aren’t really worried about truth here or what is correct.
should be “alkalinity” I think
ocean acidity and alkalinity would go together, so
ocean acidification and alkalinization would go together.
as does caustic and corrosive.
however, when you add acid to a buffered base, you are not acidifying the solution, you are neutralizing the solution.
CO2 is neutralizing the ocean. However this doesn’t sound very scary, thus the scientifically incorrect term acidification. Climate science is like Political science. It uses “science” in the name to pretend it is somehow related to science.
Climate science is scientific the same way the People’s Democratic Republic is democratic.
Alkalinization and acidification denote changes in alkalinity. The amount of calcium and of carbonate ions characterizes the current alkalinity.
Change in “the amount of” calcium (contributing pOH) vs carbonate (contributing pH) indicates either “alkalinization” or “acidification” for increase or decrease respectively. When we quibble over their use of the more familiar term (for decrease in pH, which they are descrying) we are providing them a straw man holding a red herring wrapped in a distraction.
They don’t need our help for that. Shouldn’t we stick to the science, which they find so slippery?
NOAA agree with you, the term ‘ocean acidification’ is pure alarmism.
pH values above 7 are commonly referred to as “basic” (or “alkaline”).
These common terms engender confusion, because a pH value does not directly reflect a quantitative measure of the concentration of bases in the solution, nor do high pH values constitute a measure of alkalinity. What is expressed by pH values >7 is still the acidity of a solution, it’s just that the acidity (H+ concentration) is very, very low (less than 10-7 (or 0.0000001) moles per liter, to be specific). To determine the alkalinity of a solution (which is related to the concentration of bases), a separate, detailed laboratory analysis must be run on the solution, so it is incorrect to characterize the change in hydrogen ion concentration as a decrease in alkalinity.
Calling this phenomenon “ocean acidification” when surface seawater will remain “basic” under future emissions scenarios is alarmist
http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
That NOAA link should be bookmarked and produced as evidence when the usual alarmists come out with their usual alarmist lies – which they will.
Has NOAA taken the link down, it does not work this morning although it worked last night?
“Has NOAA taken the link down, it does not work this morning although it worked last night?”
Worked OK just now!
Your reading comprehension is poor or you are trying to be cute. A PH of 7 is neutral, period. Going towards that value is neutralization, period. I took College chemistry. When we took a PH that was different than 7 and made it go to 7 it was ALWAYS called neutralization. Now NOAA is trying to redefine PH to fit their alarmist purposes. PH of 7 is not an arbitrary point on the PH scale as is a zero reading on the Fahrenheit or Celsius scales. Absolutely pure water has a PH of 7 and NOAA is trying to say it is acidic so they can make the alarmist emotive claim that the oceans are acidifying. Yes the oceans are acidifying if absolutely pure water is acidic!
I agree….this paper is a mess
They used ice data from papers 2005-2007…which were based on data gathered years before they were written…to show longer melt seasons, thinner ice, etc
Then used that data combined with the latest papers on what would happen..
fed in into a computer
…to come up with this fairy tale
Which is all based on extending that trend line again
From the article:
Increasing our observations in this area will help us develop the environmental information needed by policy makers and industry to address the growing challenges of ocean acidification.”
More money please!
The best of both worlds. Show up on a research ship. Test the ph of the water while you get some publicity shots. Then go home and sit in front of a model to work out the future. Why the hell not. Research less than this can earn you a Nobel Peace prize and tons more money.
At least they did some practical testing. So this shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
Obviously the paper uses inappropriate language; “corrosive”, “acidic”, “saturated with…”. All of those aren’t and near certainly won’t be. But that’s just a sign of poor language skills, not necessarily poor logic.
And they did look at the real world. That means something.
Remember, this was published in a real journal. This isn’t Nature Climate Change comedy de jour.
Let’s consider it before dismissing it.
Mr Courtney,
Eh? When it includes, “This change due to ocean acidification…” it means that you can dismiss it – because they suggest less alkaline is acidification. If you have a glass of water saturated with salt (sea water, if you like) and you add a [really] tiny amount of sugar, you haven’t ‘sweetened’ it. The term ‘acidification’ rules out taking anything else in it seriously.
poor language skills come from poor logic …
Big Jim:
Acidification is defined as decrease in pH (equivalent to increase in pOH). It does not depend on whether the concentrations becoming more equal or less equal (pH + pOH == 7.0)*. Less alkaline IS more acidic, no matter how unfortunate is the public response to the terms they propagate to their … ahem … base. (We could also say more corrosive is less caustic, and perhaps we should.)
Likewise, adding sugar to a salty solution DOES sweeten it, although that example is not to my taste. A day which goes from above to below freezing HAS cooled. Refusing to take technical terms seriously and surrendering the battlefield is a tactical error.
*Water in equilibrium has 10 to the power of –14 concentration of “hydrogen” (hydronium or H3O+) ions multiplied by concentration of hydroxyl (OH-) ions.
DUH … I mean, pH + pOH = 14, not 7. Sorry.
Isn’t it a bit odd that they collected this data 3-4yrs ago, and we’re just now hearing about it?
Did they use an abacus to compile their results?
Seems awfully fishy to me (pun intended).
Listen. I know that the sea is alkaline. It’s still alkaline in reality. “Acidification” is use of a politicised language. But that language got them published so it was expedient. It has no impact on the real meaning. It’s still alkaline. But they are using publishable language to get a paper published.
The paper may still have some truth in it.
Jim from Maine makes a good point. It took a long time to get this published.
Maybe it’s junk? Maybe it needed rewriting to pass the gatekeepers of peer review.
Regardless, they still went there and looked.
So let’s not dismiss it as cyber-fantasies. There are such things. But this may not be one of them.
BillK, speaking as a chemist, I’d never say that having reduced pH from 8.1 to 7.8 is “acidification.” If anything, I’d describe the process as having made the solution slightly less alkaline.
“Acidification” is technically correct but a chemical misconstruction, is never used by laboratory professionals to describe the circumstance of having slightly lowered an alkaline pH, and is dishonestly employed in consensus climatology as a scare term.
Jim from Maine, it probably took that long to parameterize (jigger) the coupled climate model to come as ‘close’ as it did to the collected samples. Which was not very close even in the published paper table 1. Jiggering results gets harder and harder as Ma Nature refuses to cooperate.
Pat: Frankly, as a chemist I would avoid use of the term “acidification” at all, even to gluteosculate the perishing publication gatekeepers.
While its denotation is technically accurate, its connotation is not correct … as it has been used to goose the public in so much propaganda.
” A day which goes from above to below freezing HAS cooled.”
Freezification?
BillK. No, that is simply NOT correct, please rescind that. If you acidfy something, it is to make it an acid, or it has become an acid through a method. The noun, acidification, is to denote a process by which something has become acidic:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acidify
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acidification
http://www.yourdictionary.com/acidification
I have stated this on here before at least twice. Something becoming less alkaline is NOT acidified. It will become acidified when it reaches beyond pH 7. Please, no more of this. It’s bad enough that scientists who are proponents of climate change use the term wrongly, but worse when climate sceptics endorse it!
@BillK — So how long must the acidification continue before we reach a neutral PH?
adding acid to a base is neutralization. no chemist would call it acidification, until the point at which the base was no longer a base.
Billk, I’m sorry to do this, and I’ve never done it on here before, but (unusually for me) I have come back onto this thread to insist that you correct what you said. The corruption of the English language is something we have to accept, but it doesn’t stop some of us trying to slow it down. I have enough problems with the word ‘pause’, and I have made efforts to get people to stop using the term (as it specifically implies that you know future events). The term ‘acidification’ is used wrongly over and over again, on both sides of the climate debate now. IT IS TO MAKE SOMETHING AN ACID. It is NOT to make something less alkaline.
BillK, if you pop back to read follow-up comments (and I must admit, I hardly ever do), please admit that what you have stated is simply incorrect. We must stop this in its tracks. It’s as though climate change is redefining what words mean.
All very well MC but they comment on the lowering of the ocean’s calcium carbonate content as a problem for moluscs. Firstly calcium carbonate does not exist in solution but as individual ions. The more CO2 dissolved then the carbonate ions increase. The pH remains alkaline because of the bicarbonate/carbonate feedback process keeps it high. To argue that increased CO2 will reduce pH and reduce aragonite production, thus reducing the molusc building blocks is contrary to reality.
Big Jim:
If you insist that becoming more acidic (less alkaline) shall not be called “acidification” until it passes the pH==7.0 boundary (except in discussing food and soil and wherever else “acidify” is commonly used) I will comply.
I don’t want the debate to be debased to the point it turns sour.
What the hell drugs are these people using?
But if it doesn’t by then, they’ll give it 50 more years.
Yep another 15 year plan down the drainm..
And note that it’s only “less hospitable”. How less? No idea. Dr. Modelcorrectus hasn’t said.
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas could become less hospitable to shelled animals by 2030
===============
or, those shelled individuals that do better in less caustic waters will thrive, while those individuals that do not will not. just like some species of trees do better after fires, while others do not. just like some species of animals do better in cold, while others do not. just like some species of plants do better in warmth, while others do not.
Oh, to be a Climate Scientists. To make a living ignorant of the ways of the world, traveling from spot to spot, finding positive affirmations to support my preconceived ideas.
Why is it always human-caused carbon dioxide emissions that affect every known foreseeable problem?
Lemme guess, it’s the only way papers get published?
Nope. Only kind that pays cold hard cash.
I was close…
Because human CO2 is sentient and evil. Natural CO2, defined as that coming from wild plants and animals, not from domesticated plants and animals is entirely good and never ever causes harm.
(Note: do not look at the isotope number between evil and natural CO2, move along, it means nothing)
Yep.
Because stupid.
More garbage with no real verifiable proof.
It is always “could or may ten”, twenty or fifty years hence.
NOAA has lost all credibility.
I apologize, but as rude as this seems, I am going to say it. NOAA will go down as the primary cause for the asshatification of science. There, I said it.
Thanks, Steve, but NOAA PMEL said it first; you’re a superior wordsmith, though. This is NOAA PMEL; the originator of the FeelypHPhraud; replacing 80 years of Argo buoy pH measurements showing a large natural pH variation and no declining pH trend with a computer modeled smooth curve with a trend showing acidification. Feely’s phraud is cited in every pH study I’ve seen since. PMEL didn’t lose any credibility over this recent example of corrosive science, though; Feely already pHlushed it.
These guys are as much of a joke as NASA, with the “97% consensus” scam posted on its website.
thanks for the chuckle
From the report: “Melting glaciers, upwelling of carbon-dioxide rich deep waters, freshwater input from rivers and the fact that cold water absorbs more carbon dioxide than warmer waters exacerbates ocean acidification in this region.”
Since I don’t know (does anyone else?), how do/does:
a) “melting glaciers” exacerbate ocean acidification?
b) “upwelling of carbon-dioxide rich deep waters” exacerbate ocean acidification? And what the heck IS “carbon-dioxide rich water” anyway? Can someone explain? Is ALL “deep water” CO2-rich?
c) “freshwater input from rivers” exacerbate ocean acidification?
d) “the fact that cold water absorbs more carbon dioxide than warmer waters” EXACERBATE ocean acidification? So what do they want?? Ice or Warm water in the Arctic?
It’s so hard to keep up with this!
Obviously Glaciers have absorbed all that acid rain, and if cold enough, all that acid snow. So when in 5000 years or so, this particular bit of glacier hits the ocean, the oceans will become more acid.
“Carbon dioxide rich water” is created when outgassing undersea volcanoes add CO2 which becomes dissolved in deep ocean waters. Eventually along certain coasts this cold water upwells, west coast of Africa, South America and of course, Antarctica, are some of them, thus making water more acid. A human related addition is from CO2 sequestration, when CO2 is pumped down into the deep ocean to a level where it is liquefied under pressure and dissolves, thus making matters worse.
“Freshwater input from rivers” contains massive amounts of dissolved CO2 from the atmosphere, and plenty of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from human industrial processes. All very acid!
Cold water absorbs CO2 better than warm or hot water, so as the North Atlantic Drift gets further and further north, and as it gets colder, it absorbs more CO2 and gets more strongly acid.
But as the Oceans are very basic to start with (not “Alkaline”) the absorption of CO2 would barely make a noticeable tad of difference.
Very had indeed to keep up with this!
Funny, Dudley! Thanks! You have to laugh!
They’re talking about stuff that’s gone on for ages and now suddenly it’s deadly. It’s amazing anyone on this planet is still alive!
How lucky we are that CO2 (plant food) and carbon (vital for life itself) have decided to go rogue after 4 billion years during our miniscule lifetimes! 🙂
.glaciers bring more calcium bicarbonate from soil that would overrun the slight acidic ph of melt.
.CO2 rich bottom waters are primarily due to benthic microbial respiration.
.riverine waters are rich in bicarbonate and dissolved CO2 is insignificant part of DIC
.cooling of seawater adds negligible decrease in ph. average oceanic ph = 8.1 bringing massive CO2 into solution would raise it by 0.1 due to temperature.
.basic and alkaline are the same thing.
It’s no wonder that salmon die every year upon river spawning, the acidity of freshwater is 10,000% greater than in the oceans.
Depending on source, almost all freshwater has a lower pH than seawater. Been going on in the Arctic for a long time. Upwelling water from below photic zone has naturally lower pH and elevated CO2 –and all other phytoplankton nutrients–from decomposition of photic zone detritus. Those upwellings are what cause thrivong coastal fisheries. More photosynthesized bottom of the food chain food, more food all the way up the chain. Cold water thing is just Le Chatellier’s principle at work.
But the truth of all those things does not make this a good paper. It is obviously biased, wrong on some counts, and incomplete on others. And, the sampling work,does not provide the annual pH and aragonite pattern to say anything meaningful biologically. See my long comment below.
Good question. First, what you are quoting is from the article above and not the report. The section in the report discussing this is on page 125 (5 of the pdf); more specifically in the right most column. I could cut paste here but the concept is written out there along with cited papers.
> And what the heck IS “carbon-dioxide rich water” anyway?
It’s soda water. As in Scotch and Soda. As you are probably aware, bivalve mollusks and species that prey on them like walruses are rarely found in soft drinks or fizzy alcoholic beverages. So obviously these folks are on to something.
Because they say so…
with this kind of logic, I guess even the rain is bad for oceans
I hope it’s not so corrosive it damages the ocean buoys. Then NOAA wouldn’t have any data to add 0.12°C to. They would have to say, “the ocean ate our global warming”.
Maybe it will cause a reduction in barnacles on ships, increasing efficiency and reducing maintenance costs? Could skew inlet temperatures too.
Which would also…wait for it…increase fuel efficiency, which in turn would reduce C02!!! We call that a Win-Win!!! 🙂
Maybe it will cause a reduction in barnacles on ships
=================
billions of dollars could be saved every year if only it was true.
Pago Pago harbor is one of the most polluted places you could hope to find. Yet shell grows on boats at a rate I’ve never seen anywhere else in the world. In only a matter of days we had about 1 inch of white shell covering the hull, propeller, everywhere. Not barnacles, more like very fine tube worms.
We could barely get out of harbor spewing black diesel fumes from a badly overloaded engine, before the water was clear enough that I dared go over the side and scrape the hull and clear the thru hulls.
Wait, they said
“the fact that cold water absorbs more carbon dioxide than warmer waters”
So the Arctic ocean is getting colder?
Doesn’t that go against the meme?
Coulda, woulda, shouda science
Fossils during >6000 ppm CO2
During the Cambrian period, CO2 was up to almost 7000 ppm or 17 times as high a current 400 ppm. Yet we have fossilized shells in limestone. Etc.
Climate and the Carboniferous Period
Houston, we have a problem! “Scientists” are ignorant of geology.
To be fair… The seas of the high CO2 periods tended to be calcitic/dolomitic. While the seas of low CO2 periods tend to be aragonitic. So, 6000 ppmv CO2atm carbonate geochemistry can’t really be compared to 400 ppmv CO2atm..
That said, this “paper” sets a new low in the CAGW arena of GIGO modeling.
Yes. And depending on species, either calcite or aragonite is the main shell formation material.
David Middleton
So the ocean alternating conditions as has happened numerous times in the geological record is supposed to be a problem caused by humans? That is essentially saying that the climate they remember growing up must be preserved no matter how much it costs – because of their fond memories. They appear to have no other basis.
I have never heard of a sea to be dolomitic. Most if not all dolomites are secondary products after fossilisation.
Aragonite is formed when more Mg is present. I am not sure that the atmospheric CO2 is a major player.
How many tons of fossil fuel per hour was that ship burning? Maybe they need to look in a mirror. I wonder if anyone who produces these rather comical papers reads the reviews of them. I especially liked the “These data were used to validate a predictive model…” So they already had the “answer”, they just had to go get initiation data.
Sad.
David, re “Scientists” are ignorant of geology.. Of course they are, that is why they call themselves “Climate Scientists” where it doesn’t matter if you are ignorant.
Maybe it actually helps to be ignorant when milking, uh, studying climate science.
They collected TA, DIC, etc data in October 2011 and 2012, using different methods and sampling frequencies… From this they claim to have constructed a robust model???
Sure, why not. Only need two points to draw a line…
And the correlation coefficient would be 1. Perfect, who needs more data to ruin the graph.
Nononononono…they already HAD the “robust model”…
They used the data to validate it.
4yrs ago.
Using different methods.
And sampling frequencies.
Really.
Climate Advocacy Science is like gravity, a basic force of physics. It starts by gathering together small clumps of fiction writers and radical groups together into a proto planet of falsehoods and then it continues to grow into an up stoppable system warping time, space, and public policy around it. At the next level of magnitude, it’s force is so strong not even light or truth can reach escape velocity and the Pope recognizes it too. At some point it is expected to spit out huge masses of money in a quasar event, spraying money out and derived from the shredded household incomes that could not all fit into the tiny hole in the fabric of reality.
It’s all based on “those models” again and a snapshot “fishing expedition”.
We all know how this ends… it’s worse than we ever thought.
Wonder how much their “tour” of the Arctic cost?
From the abstract there is this: “some of the largest commercial and subsistence fisheries in the world may be under tremendous pressure.”
In the past if there were any detrimental changes to a fishing industry it was usually as a consequence of the pressure that industry was applying to a given fish stock; e.g. The Grand Banks, North Sea Herring, among others, where fish stocks were exhausted.
The attention given towards a supposed ocean tendency towards a neutral pH can take attention away from good husbandry which in itself is already in conflict with financial pressures. However, I understand there are strict fishing quotas around the area in this topic designed to preserve stocks.
This might seem off topic but I will make a loose connection between the abstract statement above and this from an Afghan bird hunter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23486991):
“Thirty years ago, I used to shoot 500-700 sparrows a day with my sling shot,” says Haji Shakoor, 57, from Salang valley. “The sky used to be full of birds. But now it seems so empty.”
Indeed Mr Shakoor.
“…500-700 sparrows a day with my sling shot”
Exaggerated claim? Seems like a lot for a slingshot. Even a 12 hour day is 40-60 kills per hour. I’d imagine there would be a few misses especially using stones for ammo.
Maybe, but the point is Mr Shakour is surprised that there are less birds around even though he was doing his damnedest to remove them.
The pressures on any fish stock is caused by uncontrolled removal of a stock on industrial scales, and degradation of that environment by either it being removed or polluted.
Stephen I got the point and I don’t disagree. But I spent a lot of my youth with a slingshot, the claim seems bogus.
Yes!!!! And I suppose the past 30 years of bombs, bullets and various gasses had nothing to do with the shortage of birds…. I also think that the comment is from a skeptic, the word “EVER” does not appear at all…
Mareeba @ur momisugly 1:35pm
I’m not sure it did as these birds are migratory and would keep away from noise, explosions etc, To kill birds effectively you would need to aim at them systematically and persistently and warfare doesn’t do this. It is interesting that the army tank ranges here in the UK support a wide range of wildlife greater than surrounding civilian areas, even though live rounds are used and they are tramped over by soldiers and tanks.
This is another embarrassingly bad/shoddy activist driven science project. So they take just 2yrs of measurements feed them into their computer model and voila “it’s worse than we thought”! Where/how can you get off from a scientific standpoint which has policy implications, say “it is probably safe to assume”. My mother was fond of rubbing in my face “how do you spell assume” ? They’ve certainly got the first half of the spelling correct.
Reminds me of the warmist with his head in the oven and his feet in a bucket of ice … on average, he felt quite comfortable
Why didn’t they say, “New study shows Arctic Ocean rapidly becoming less caustic to marine species”?
Because that doesn’t have the same meaning. Corrosive means eroding, erosive, abrasive – it doesn’t just mean acidic. For example, the salt in salt water can accelerate the corrosion of metals.
Because it’s “caustic”? 😎
Good reference here: http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-is-ocean-acidification/faq.html However, be very careful to observe the WEASEL WORDS meaning the ‘might’…could, may, etc. Whereas if you read the FACTUAL DATA it’s obvious the ALLEGED Ph reduction (from like 8.5 to 8.4, Ph, which is still BASIC) is based on TENUOUS and incomplete measurements, and the problems for “species adjusted to the ocean Ph” are also “weaseled” in the way they are references. All in all, a good set of answers for facts and numbers, a BAD reference for the way it is written to support a FALSE NARRATIVE. See if you can observe that!
I stopped reading after I read Could and Predictive Modeling.\
I think the IPCC copied the Fed’s predictive models, none of which have ever alerted the Fed to a financial disaster.
It’s non-stop credibility test/trial ballooning with these people isn’t it.