Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
When I wrote “Ocean Acidification: Trying to Get the Science Right” , I sent Dr. Christopher Cornwall, lead author of Cornwall & Hurd 2015, a courtesy advanced copy of the essay, inviting him to comment. Dr. Cornwall was away doing field work at the time, but on his return has supplied the following: (his words in italics)
[ read more ]
Hi Kip,
…. I am not trying to defend the inappropriately designed or analysed papers, but feel that these points could be useful to your readers,
Cheers,
Chris
“The field of ocean acidification has a few logistical constraints (mentioned in the paper) that make it more challenging than many other fields of research. Other than appropriate replication and randomisation, there are many other components that make up the methodological merits of paper. For example, correctly measuring and manipulating carbonate chemistry, the ecological/environmental realism of the experimental conditions, and the utility of the prescribed treatments in testing the hypotheses posed. Therefore, while the majority of ocean acidification studies may be carefully designed in many of the aspects mentioned above, it is clear that not all studies are perfect in every facet. If any given field of research was examined in a similar way I would be surprised if the number of perfectly designed studies was high.
Many “classic” papers in the infancy of ecology were conducted using limited replication; future research then built on their findings to improve our knowledge. The same phenomenon is occurring here in ocean acidification research – and the same process of refinement will likely occur in other fields of research in the future if it has not already. The money spent by governments on ocean acidification was, in most cases, spent wisely. The same findings that appear in many of the first classic papers have been repeated using appropriate experimental methods. As well as in the laboratory studies we examined, these findings have also been represented in field experiments. It is now clear that ocean acidification will negatively impact marine ecosystems through alteration of the behaviour of many fish and invertebrate species, and through reductions in the calcification of many (but not all) calcifying species. The key now is for ocean acidification research to continue to improve and provide a benchmark for other fields of research.”
Subsequently, I wrote and asked Dr. Cornwall’s opinion on this question:
As widespread significantly lowered pH is expected only to take place gradually on a century scale, how predictive can we expect results to be from immediate-to-rapid (weeks or months) reduction of pH? What is the thinking on this issue in the OA field? What research procedures are planned or in use to find out now, without waiting the requisite 100 years?
His answer:
“Yes, there has also been discussion in the OA community about whether experiments represent initial shock responses or realistic responses. There are a number of experiments that gradually ramp pH down to test the effects – the results so far are not clear cut, but this is definitely another aspect to be considered in future research. Some of the short-duration research in my sub-field (macroalgae) usually show less dramatic effects than longer experiments, which indicates to me that responses generally are not an initial shock responses – but more research is required on this topic, and I cannot say for certain that the responses of some studies are not “shock” responses.
Also, there has been a number of studies examining whether organisms could adapt to OA, or whether organisms from habitats with high variability in pH could already possess traits beneficial to them under OA. The results of these studies are also not clear cut as yet unfortunately – though this is an avenue of research that is expanding currently.
Attached is a paper** looking at dramatic versus gradual exposure to low pH seawater.”
And while I am sure that Chris is fully aware that I do not share his certainty about the future negative effects of ocean acidification, it is a pleasure to be able to interact with him in such a collegial and professional manner. If only it were so with so many others who should be our colleagues in the various fields related to climate science.
For the future of OA?
For the research field known as OA, I would call for a full Cochrane-style review * of the research to date, using only the very best studies, those properly designed, carried out with correct chemistry, analysed with appropriate statistical methods and taking into account the proper time frames in order to estimate our actual current state of knowledge on the subject. Chris Cornwall and Catriona Hurd are already well positioned to do such a work.
In light of the acknowledged white hat and confirmation bias that exists in the field, I support John Ioannidis who suggests the following for all scientific fields: “large studies with minimal bias should be performed on research findings that are considered relatively established, to see how often they are indeed confirmed. I suspect several established ‘classics’ will fail the test.” (my italics)
It is so very easy to fool ourselves about science – medical research has shown this over and over: reversals of “givens” both in medical theory, clinical practice and hopeful looking cures and treatments are almost the norm when gold standard RCT trials are performed on treatments which are already widely practiced and/or popularly accepted. What “everybody knows” has seldom been sufficiently verified and is often found incorrect.
# # # # #
* — “Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy, and are internationally recognised as the highest standard in evidence-based health care. “
** — “Coralline algal structure is more sensitive to rate, rather than the magnitude, of ocean acidification” KAMENOS et al 2013 — Global Change Biology (2013) 19, 3621–3628, doi: 10.1111/gcb.12351
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy: This piece is mostly made up of Dr. Cornwall’s response to an earlier essay, his opinions and words. He has been notified of its posting and has received an advanced copy. He may choose to participate in comments.
I (Kip Hansen) will respond to comments directed specifically to me, such as : “Kip – Thanks for highlighting this work…can you tell us….?”. Of course, I cannot comment for Dr. Cornwall or answer questions about his opinions – he has stated them very clearly.
# # # # #
“reversals of “givens” both in medical theory, clinical practice and hopeful looking cures and treatments are almost the norm when gold standard RCT trials are performed on treatments which are already widely practiced and/or popularly accepted. What “everybody knows” has seldom been sufficiently verified and is often found incorrect.”
Head Start is a perfect example. A feel-good, reasonable idea with a variety of different small studies finding what they went looking for. But once the government weighed in with a gold standard, randomized controlled study (the Head Start Impact Study), it found zero evidence that Head Start had ever delivered a lasting educational benefit to any child.
The political response was predictable. Those who liked Head Start and bringing extra money into the teachers unions responded that we should now enact universal Pre-K, rather than dismantling a 40+ year $150+ billion program that was proven to be ineffective by rigorous science.
Yep- HS is a failed white elephant. Another nice example of post-normal policy making.
He is a nice sort of guy who loses me at the the name he gives his area of study, OA. If it was serious science it would be called “Ocean pH studies”.
But a proper name would not yield career making steady grants to feed on. The “A” in “OA” does not nor ever will exist no matter how many grants he gets.
And the lack of studies that show any trend in ocean pH that is beyond the typical fluctuations of ocean pH that are well documented.
Frankly he could have named this area of study “The search for the Holy Chalice” for all the actual results he will get.
Kip’s reluctance to complete the mantra he repeats is interesting.
It implies he does not understand that CO2 mixing with water to form “carbonic acid” has gone on since there was CO2 and water.
It also skips over what happens when the water at the surface which absorbs CO2 mixes and moves around an ocean filled with and lined with buffering agents. The oceans hold many times the CO2 held in the atmosphere and do not show, either chemically or physically that they are anywhere near their carrying capacity.
Life has demonstrated in experiments and historically that it is adaptable to wide ranges in ocean pH.
Areas like the NW US where periodic undersea surges of lower pH deep ocean water come to the surface and have throughout history shows that the local marine environment adapts just fine.
The best thing would be perhaps to stop even acknowledging that the term “OA” is legitimate. It is not.
It is a marketing term with no science behind it.
“Ocean pH studies” is more descriptive and challenges the climate obsessed to actually think- something that is sorely lacking in nearly all areas of climate related or CO2 obsessed studies and policies.
OA reminds me of New York attorney general Eric Schneidermans crusade against herbal supplements. I do not understand why herbal supplements are so popular since there is no proof of their efficacy but I digress.
Schneidermans crew of crack scientists “proved” that 79% of the supplements tested did not contain the herbs listed on their bottles. The problem was their measuring and testing procedures were not appropriate and mis-applied. After much public fanfare, flamboyant posturing and threats to the industry the scientific results were thrown out. None the less Schneiderman claimed consumer victory by reaching a settlement. The “victory” settlement included admission of no wrong doing, fines, or any other penalties and the same herbal products would continue to be sold in the same way. The only concession was signs would be posted explaining the difference between plants and processed extracts, ironically which only the scientists in Schneidermans crusade were confused about.
Anyways in any field there is a certain number of incompetents and fools, science is no exception. The issue is when you mix politics and science it seems the incompetents and fools rise to the top.
A simple question: Could shellfish form shells without dissolved CO2 in the oceans?
No. Period.
The thread I am commenting on (re the term acidification) has gotten so tangled that I gave up figuring out where to reply, so I will just start a new thread,
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley wrote: “Chemists cannot alter the English language which is defined in dictionaries”.
Totally wrong. Scientists alter the English language (and every other language in which science is done) all the time. It is a *requirement* of science since the language does not come pre-equiped with technical terms. Technical terms mean what the experts in the field say they mean; if a dictionary disagrees, then the dictionary is wrong.
wickedwenchfan wrote: “Regardless of what chemists call the process, the term “Ocean Acidification” is a political term in the public domain not a scientific one.”
It is used by scientists, therefore it is a scientific term. Unfortunately, it is a term that has become politicized.
wickedwenchfan wrote: “The purpose of language is to communicate so one person can correctly understand another.”
So “acidification” is really the only term we have, since the public does not know what “reducing pH” means and would be completely incapable of correctly interpreting the term “neutralization” (far more misleading than acidification).
rick wrote: “But there is not an acid being added to the ocean.”
Wrong. As any chemist can tell you, CO2 is an acid. It is a Lewis acid. Such acids are not always discussed in introductory courses, which are often limited to Arrhenius acids (an essentially obsolete concept) and Bronsted acids (very useful in aqueous solution).
Reply to Mike M. (period) ==> It is an odd phenomena — all this hub-bub about the nomenclature — those beefing about the name adopted by the field of scientific research are wasting their time and efforts — it is unlikely, at this stage of the scientific game, that the name of the field of endeavor will be changed, even if we (they) don’t particularly like it or feel that there would be a better name if we could turn back the clock and start over. It gets pretty ridiculous.
I wrote an essay here on Propter Nomen, a logical fallacy which bases an argument simply the name of a thing — in this odd case, an argument against a field of research because they don’t like the name — hardly a word about the science of it all.
“Chaos Theory” is another example — it is not a theory and is not really about chaos — but we are stuck with the name. Efforts have been made to change the research field into “Non-Linear Dynamics” and other things, but popularly, Chaos Theory is used, even among the non-linear dynamic researchers.
When I was working on my thesis ‘Chaos Theory’ was an unknown term, we used ‘nonlinear dynamics’, ‘chaos theory’ came later.
Reply to Phil ==> Ah — Modern Chaos Theory, as you probably know, derives from the nonlinear dynamics involved in computerized weather prediction (Edward Lorenz). I have written about it here (an essay that was received with very mixed response). Chaos Theory is a bucket containing a lot of things.
Where does half our oxygen come from? Let’s let the alarmist side tell us:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
“Half of the world’s oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis.”
Kip Hansen and Dr. Cornwall, do the experiments measure how much CO2 is divided to form O2 that his returned to the atmosphere from the activity of plankton. Do researchers know how much O2 is produced in this process thereby removing that proportion of CO2 and sequestering the C? Maybe a simple answer: What percentage of a given amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater in a year is used up to produce oxygen? Not only is acidification resisted by buffering but significant proportions are sequestered by splitting off oxygen, by formation of conches of shells and by simple precipitation of inorganic carbonates.
Does Ferdinand Englebeen, Dr. Cornwall and others adequately account for these factors? Henry’s law which is trotted out in these discussions from time to time is a weak authority to appeal to in such a dynamic system. Are researchers still surprised that Henry’s Law is ‘out’ by a factor of 50% in actual ocean uptake (ocean takes up more than Henry would be comfortable with)?
Are they aware that below 500m the ocean hasn’t yet begun to absorb what CO2 it can? An overturning (La Nina, thermohaline conveyor, etc).
A paleo history tells us that CO2, at a multiple of our present levels has not killed the ocean or even interrupted the hundreds of millions of years of the family tree of mollusca – this stuff is still sequestered in rocks – removed from the cycle.
Now having said all this, I fully support the necessarily crude efforts we are stuck with for now in exploring changes and trying to evaluate effects of higher CO2 on the oceans. I note that elevated CO2 is unequivocally beneficial to the plant kingdom – even hundreds of billions of tonnes of evil coal are internments of former plants. Good science would at least investigate the null hypothesis that CO2 is good for the oceans, too. Include Le Chatelier’s principle in your deliberations – it is much more powerful a law than its namesake ever dreamed of – he was basically stating the a system acts in a direction to resist an agent of change in chemistry – he didn’t think it also anticipated Newton’s Laws of Motion, back EMF of motors, behavior of supply and demand to price changes, etc. Know that your cubic metre samples of seawater and titrations and chemical changes, etc are half way between ridiculousness and hopefulness.
I’ve suggested earlier that maybe a few dozen km square ocean plots, selected from around the world for their abundance of molluscs should be monitored, submersibles surveying with cameras the ocean floor and physical samples take to estimate the tonnage and number of molluscs every 5 years, 3D grid of temperature, pH, biota and chemistry of water samples. This is a mining engineer/metallurgist/ geologist’s suggestion. It automatically takes into consideration the minutiae of complications in the real world.
Reply to Gary Pearce ==> What competent OA researchers are actually investigating is the question of what changes will take place with the oceans’ carbonate chemistry under increased atmospheric CO2 and what effects this might have on the oceans’ biota and thus on mankind.
There are, of course, and as you suggest, many very interesting questions to be asked of and about the seas.
Since we know that at several times the CO2 ppm of today the oceans did OK, perhaps a less alarmist and less prejudicial approach would actually yield science?
As a basis for comparison, I am interested in knowing what the pH sensitivity of plain, sterile, well aerated seawater would be to a doubling the of pCO2. Who can point me to this information?
Gary Pearse September 10, 2015 at 7:28 am
Where does half our oxygen come from? Let’s let the alarmist side tell us:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
“Half of the world’s oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis.”
Kip Hansen and Dr. Cornwall, do the experiments measure how much CO2 is divided to form O2 that his returned to the atmosphere from the activity of plankton. Do researchers know how much O2 is produced in this process thereby removing that proportion of CO2 and sequestering the C? Maybe a simple answer: What percentage of a given amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater in a year is used up to produce oxygen? Not only is acidification resisted by buffering but significant proportions are sequestered by splitting off oxygen, by formation of conches of shells and by simple precipitation of inorganic carbonates.
You are laboring under a misapprehension about photosynthesis, CO2 is not ‘divided to form O2’, the O2 produced by splitting H2O, CO2 is used to form carbohydrates.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#/media/File:Thylakoid_membrane_3.svg
I see I was simplistic, but, re my larger point, still the C was sequestered and wouldn’t change my CO2 mass balance – pretty much the same as sequestering carbon in plants.
Corals originated in the Cambrian period [atmospheric C02 up to 7000ppm] and became widespread in the Ordovician [atmospheric CO2 around 4400ppm].
I think Chris Cornwall might find the experiments have been done already
Reply to GregK ==> Such oversimplifications miss the important issues involved. See my reply to Gary Pearse, just above.
Scientific inquiry is about asking questions of and about the world around us.
Simplistic answers to strawman questions are the stock-and-trade of propagandists worldwide — and certainly of the propagandists on both sides of the Climate Wars.
It is ever so-easy to chant “CO2 heats the atmosphere!” or “CO2 is plant food!” as if these assertions were answers to the scientifically serious and important questions (they are not, by the way, neither of them).
When the price of oysters changes for the worse for more than one or two seasons, then we will know that the oceans have been substantially altered. This has not occurred yet, at least not here in Chicago.
Measuring “the Ph of the oceans” is a Herculean task. The oceans are substantially buffered. Anti-industrialists we will always have with us, although few of them adopt Thoreau’s lifestyle.
Whenever someone tells you the oceans are being acidified, reply, “But the oceans are not acid, they are caustic/basic.” Watch the bewilderment this produces…
Reply to Michael Moon ==> See my reply to GregK just above.
Strictly speaking, caustic refers to a basic solution which is concentrated enough to cause burns.
Kip Hansen,
This might be something you could ask Dr. Cornwall.
It occurs to me that the tank studies start out with specific organisms and specific conditions. Presumably the latter are conditions for which the former are well adapted. To put it another way, each organism has evolved so that the conditions in which it is found tend to be the optimal conditions for that organism. In that case, any significant change in conditions is likely to be unfavorable.
But that does not mean that the conditions will remain unfavorable. Within limits, organisms (especially simple ones) can evolve fairly rapidly to adapt to changing conditions; we see this all the time with antibiotic resistant bacteria or pesticide resistant insects. Thus, a change that occurs too fast to allow for adaption will have a bigger negative impact than the same change occurring at a much slower rate. I would think it unlikely that lab experiments can properly account for that. So I expect that the real world impacts would be less than those observed in the laboratory.
Open ecosystems, such as in the oceans but not in laboratory tanks, can adapt independent of the organisms in them. The balance of species in a given location can shift and the ranges occupied by species can move. Many such changes would likely not be noticed by anyone other than an expect making a close study, since they would involve the simplest organisms for which there are many nearly interchangeable species. So again I expect that the real world impacts would be less than those observed in the laboratory.
So, can we really extrapolate from even the best designed lab studies to the real ocean?
I suspect that in answering Dr. Cornwall would make the reasonable point that we can’t do such studies in the lab and we should not do such an experiment on the only ocean we have. But that still leaves open the question of what the real effects might be. And provides little guidance to those of us disinclined towards the “all change is bad” philosophy.
Of more fundamental importance is the phrase “within limits”. What worries me is that we might push things beyond the point where simple tuning of organisms or ecosystems can compensate. Based on exhaustion of surface ocean buffering capacity, I am inclined to think that double CO2 is probably not a big problem but quadruple CO2 would be a big problem. But is there any way to determine that without doing the global experiment?
Lobster shells are chitin. Not carbonate.
Just sayin’.
Reply to Mike M. (period) ==> You’ll see (text of the main essay here) that in my email conversation with Dr.. Cornwall I asked a very similar question, which he answered.
There are ongoing experiments in the open oceans with CO2 perturbations whose results will not be known for some time, and a quite a few studies investigating the biota in places where CO2 concentrations are naturally higher (such as near ocean bottom CO2 vents).
Quite a few experiments (quality unknown) have pointed to the rate of change being more important than the quantity of change.
You are asking the very questions that are the basics of almost all current OA research — they are trying to answer those questions with their research.
If you formulate a precise question, 50 words or less, I will ask Dr. Cornwall to answer for us.
Here is a precise question for Dr. Cornwall: “If an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in 55 years has not altered the price of oysters, what increase in how many years WILL change the price of oysters?” This is not an oversimplification, this is the heart of the matter after all, the oceans are the source of life.
Incidentally, the price of lobster is really really low right now, less than half what it was ten years ago…
Reply to Michael Moon ==> I will field this one for Dr. Cornwall.
The Law of Supply and Demand — along with the economic factors involving value of the local currency vs. commodities (price of bread) — will determine the price of oysters.
This answer does not change with or without changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The factors are unrelated.
The same is true of lobsters…..that’s why the price is down.
While corals have indeed been around since at least the early Paleozoic, the Paleozoic rugose corals made calcite shells and did not survive the Permian extinction. Modern corals show up in the mid-Triassic and make aragonite shells.
True that dictionary definitions—including Stedman’s Medical—are:
Alkalization: make alkali
Neutralization: make neutral
Acidification: make acid
And there were apparently plenty of papers hypothesizing effects of CO2 on seawater that didn’t use the term “ocean acidification” prior to the “International Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gas Concentrations—Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” and publication of the 2005 Royal Society paper. The term was almost certainly coined to influence political decisions and—judging from glut of “ocean acidification” studies—attract grants.
Too late to do much about it, though. It’s being
taughtindoctrinated in elementary school.http://www.cisanctuary.org/ocean-acidification/hands_on_activities.php
Have you taken the pledge?
— Carol Blanchette,
Research Biologist, UC Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute
Dirving less is especially important. We have no idea what that’s doing to the environment.
Reply to verdeviewer ==> The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary site, especially the OA portion, is a masterful example of Science as Propaganda.
“Back in my undergraduate days, we were conducting a base catalyzed hydrolysis of protein at pH ~12. The lab instructions read in part, “after the catalysis is complete, acidify to neutrality“. Not one person in the lab was confused, or complained about the nomenclature in use.” Really? Amazing. I’m quite sure Dr. Sunny (his name, can you remember your INSTRUCTORS NAMES?) in my Analytical Chemistry course would have said, “Add acid to bring pH to 12.” Probably with a caveat to monitor continuously with stirring to assure the pH change was obtained throughout the sample. Until the bogus “climate” game, I’d never heard the term, “acidifying” a solution. In point of SEMANTIC FACT it would strongly imply or DEMAND that the solution achieve a pH < 7 to ACIDIFY it. I presume, however, that the above commentator would have different meaning than I, base on what he thinks the meaning of "is", is! ("My words, mean precisely what I want them to mean….nothing more and nothing less", said the Red Queen to Alice. Where much semantic debating is allowed, unlike in engineering… (This could all be moot, if the person with a semantic confusion is "ESL". In that case we'd have to "throw mama from the train…")
Reply to Max Hugoson => Boy, that’s a lot of all caps words over something as simple as a piece of new nomenclature. Another of our commenters has threatened to scan and post a copy of his school-days chemistry text making the exact opposite point to yours.
I have never experienced someone claiming that something was a “semantic fact” or that use of certain words “demand” certain, specified outcomes. You should be careful that you are not seen to be an example of the very thing you are complaining about.
I will repeat for those who still have not quite grasped the point: “Ocean Acidification simply refers to the adding of carbonic acid to the oceans, through the natural process of atmospheric CO2 dissolving/mixing into the water — under conditions of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, more CO2 is taken up by the oceans — which action tends towards decreasing oceanic pH.”
Having been established, rightly or wrongly, as the simple definition for use in their field of research, we can then use the term without remorse — as it is clearly defined nomenclature within its own field.
The rest of us can grant that it is a term that lends itself to propagandistic use, which is an unfortunate aspect of advocacy science in so many scientific endeavors in our modern day. Many of us would have rather seen them adopt a different name, an alternate name, which would be, on its face, less prone to misuse. The same fight is fought over terms such as global warming, climate change, organic foods, alternative medicine — the list is nearly endless.
We can also grant that the field of OA thrives on the steady drumbeat of propagandistic alarmism from within its own ranks and the greater field of climate change. That alarmism has been a literal gold mine of research dollars for hard-strapped oceanic labs and academic departments — and, pragmatically, it is unrealistic to think that they will give
usup either the alarmist-tone or the funds so raised anytime soon.“pragmatically, it is unrealistic to think that they will give us either the alarmist-tone or the funds so raised anytime soon.”
Did you mean to say “give up”, rather than “give us”?
oops == yes, “give up either the alarmist-tone or the funds so raised anytime soon.”
Thank you.
Moderator: can you fix my comment to show “give
usup either the alarmist-tone” …. Thanks.[done -mod]
The OA papers I have seen read as if they were written by someone that has no experience in carbonates, micropaleontology, or Earth history. Overall ocean chemistry is controlled by the rate of sea floor spreading, with high spreading rates increasing the Mg:Ca ratio and greatly affecting overall chemistry. The Mg:Ca ratio is what marine calcifiers care about, not whether the pH is 7.8 or 7.6.
http://openearthsystems.org/data/readings/FridaySeminars/2012-02-10-Linda-Carbonates/StanleyandHardie1998-Secular%20oscillations%20in%20the%20carbonate%20mineralogy%20of%20reef-building%20and%20sediment-producing%20organisms%20driven%20by%20tectonically%20forced%20shifts%20in%20seawater%20chemistry.pdf
Every shell building organism has a mechanism for protecting itself from the oft diurnal swings of pH by over a whole unit. This protection is usually a mucus that buffers the organism from the surrounding sea water. CaCO3 sediment and inorganically precipitated CaCO3 do not have these protections from dissolution.
Let’s be clear. Ocean Acidification is a propaganda term. How it may have been used in the past is not relevant. To the masses it’s purpose is singular … to scare people. Therefore, anyone using this term has forfeited their rights to being considered a scientist. They are now an activist.
These people should keep in mind that if skeptics turn out to be completely right the chances for a witch hunt become high. Anyone using propaganda words like this will be front and center when the trails begin. It will not be a question of who is right or wrong on some technical level. I’d suggest real scientists should think about the consequences of their use of propaganda terms.
The oceans have had four billion years to absorb CO2.
Why are they not acidic yet?
Not enough time?
In fact, the oceans are permanently slightly alkaline.
Limestone / coral / shells etc. are insoluble in water.
They react with carbonic acid (H2O + CO2) to make Ca(HCO3)2 called calcium bicarbonate.
This is SOLUBLE in water and is alkaline.
It compensates for any extra acidity caused by extra dissolved CO2.
If the Earth ever runs out of limestone, coral, shells, etc., then the climate change cult can start doomsaying about the oceans.
Can someone tell me when the Earth will run out of rocks?
Based on computer games, depending on who programs those “confusers”, ANYTHING can happen to the oceans in a digital fantasy world — they could become acidic, start boiling, freeze solid, or turn pink — computer games are not data, so they are not science, and they certainly can not predict the future.
Limestone is made from coral and shells (of other shell forming organisms), and time.
So before there was any limestone, what was the state of the ocean?
Another mineral high in carbonate is dolomite.
The difference between the limestone minerals, calcite and aragonite is merely one of crystalline form, whereas dolomite differs in chemical composition…it contains magnesium.
Dolomite and dolomitic limestone are widely used as buffers in soil. Since there are vast amounts of this mineral all over the Earth, you can add it to the limestone as preventing the oceans from becoming acidic..
No need, the amount of Ca an Mg carbonates in the oceans significantly exceeds that found on land already.
Interesting dialogue on the term “acidification”. I’m firmly in the camp that thinks that this is misuse of language with an intent to deceive. I admit that I only skipped through most of it but I don’t recall having come across the term “buffer” or “buffering” effect. Surely that plays a role as well in controlling pH? It did in my days as a student. Would we accept an insurance company determination that a vehicle has started to reverse when in fact it was only decelerating? I don’t think so. One last thing. I have read various papers that clearly show that pH varies with time of day in some reef pools and also that there is a variation of pH between various oceans and seas in the range 8.2 to 7.9 or thereabouts. So what are we measuring and where?
Great response Richard Greene. I must have lost patience towards the end of the thread and missed your comment. Your response says it all.
There are plenty of references to buffers and buffering…you must have skimmed a little too fast.
Buffering happens any time one has a solution of a weak acid or a weak base.
The ocean has several buffering systems, of which by far the most significant is the carbonate/bicarbonate/carbonic acid one.
“The term pH symbolizes the hydrogen ion concentration in a solution”
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-are-acids-bases-and-ph-all-about-anyway.html
“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide) and is similar to that of estuarine
waters because of the buffering capacity provided by the
abundance of strong basic cations such as sodium,
potassium, and calcium and of weak acid anions such as
carbonates and borates (Wetzel 1983). Higher pHs are
usually found in near-surface waters because of solar
radiation. The effect of solar radiation on pH is twofold: it
promotes photosynthesis and increases surface temperatures, both of which decrease the amount of free carbonic
acid and consequently raise the pH (Skirrow 1965; Wetzel
1983)”
I’ve read enough!
Anthony, admins who is this Kip Hansen? Every word he says is irrational given a moments thought. What is going on? He authors posts then manages to patronise every commenter. But the premise is a joke. He is here because of his bonafides I guess but are your sure about them?
“One of the major discoveries of the mid-nineteenth century was Michael Faraday’s demonstration that aqueous solutions of salts and some acids would conduct an electric current. In this unit we take a close look at the nature and behavior of ions in aqueous solution, with special emphasis on the electrical conductance of such solutions.” http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/solut/solut-7.html
Ocean acidification is another one of those misleading terms like “climate change” or “carbon pollution”.
Can someone tell us even just one location where the sea is turning acidic (excluding deep undersea volcanoes and other places where human concentrated acidic filth is being dumped in the sea)? I haven’t seen it in the Mediterranean, or in the Indian Ocean, or in the Caribbean, or in the Atlantic or in the Pacific. Is it happening in theArctic or the Antarctic? Nope. For people hear to even be using the term, here, is a disgrace because on the ph scale the sea is alkaline.