By Craig D. Idso — August 22, 2022
“Ocean acidification and warming concerns, however, are vastly overstated and generally far out of touch with reality. In almost every instance, the predicted degree of harm is exaggerated due to improper scenario inputs that utilize the most extreme scenarios of future temperature and seawater pH. Furthermore, their projections fail to take into account the ability of species to acclimate and adapt, both within and across generations.”
Shark Week has become a staple of American television. Debuting in the summer of 1988 the event has morphed into a week-long block of programming at the Discovery Channel featuring all kinds of entertaining and educational shows focusing on sharks.
Hot off the heels of this year’s event, I could not help but be drawn to the title of an article pertaining to these menacing but often misunderstood fish species: “Shark teeth can resist ocean acidification.”
Written by Leung et al. (2022) and published in the journal Global Change Biology, the article examined how the supposed twin-evils of the radical environmental movement, i.e., global warming and ocean acidification, might impact sharks, and in particular, their teeth.
Background
To insert a little background here, for decades now climate alarmists have prostituted model-based projections into claiming that global warming and ocean acidification are inflicting serious harm and damage across Earth’s flora and fauna. And if such damage is not stopped, they say it will ultimately lead to the extinction of numerous species.
Ocean acidification and warming, however, are vastly overstated and generally far out of touch with reality. In almost every instance, the predicted degree of harm is exaggerated due to improper scenario inputs that utilize the most extreme scenarios of future temperature and seawater pH. Furthermore, their projections fail to take into account the ability of species to acclimate and adapt, both within and across generations.
When these and other constraints are properly accounted for, predictions of future doom and gloom give way to scenarios of hope with scientists recognizing global warming and ocean acidification to be largely non-problems.
Misleading Analysis
The paper by Leung et al. falls into this latter category, despite the fact that they utilized one of the more extreme scenarios of future global warming and ocean acidification. Focusing on the Port Jackson shark (Heterodontus portusjacksoni) the team of six researchers reared newly-hatched juvenile sharks for two months under two temperature (ambient or ambient +3°C) and two ocean acidification (ambient seawater pH or ambient -0.3 pH units) regimes under controlled laboratory conditions.
At the end of the experimental period the authors examined mechanical and mineralogical properties of the sharks’ teeth in an effort to discern any differences among treatments. The importance of their work are its implications for predator-prey interactions and energy dynamics in future marine environments, where ocean acidification and warming are predicted to compromise them.
Results of the study revealed slight differences in various mechanical properties under ocean acidification alone or temperature alone. Higher temperature, for example, decreased both teeth elasticity (indicated by a higher elastic modulus) and mechanical resilience, whereas ocean acidification increased teeth elasticity and reduced teeth hardness (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The mechanical properties of shark teeth, including (a) hardness, (b) elastic modulus and (c) mechanical resilience after exposure to different seawater temperature and pH treatment conditions (mean + SE, n = 4). Control = 16°C, pH 8.0; OA = 16°C, pH 7.7; Temp = 19°C, pH 8.0; OA × Temp = 19°C, pH 7.7. Source: Leung et al. (2022).
However, when in combination, Leung et al. found that this “benthic shark was able to adjust mineralogical properties of its teeth to maintain their durability under future seawater conditions (i.e. increased acidity and temperature), suggesting a potential acclimatization capacity to tolerate climate change stressors.”
In other words, the researchers observed that the durability of the sharks’ teeth increased; they were “less prone to physical damage due to the production of more elastic teeth.” Consequently, Leung et al. conclude their findings “offer a more optimistic sense about [the shark species’] fitness and survival in the future.”
Conclusion
So it is that another scientific study has shown ocean acidification and warming to be a non-problem. And that is good news for the producers of future Shark Week television events—they will continue to get all the footage they could ever want of those enormous pearly-whites chomping away in another good old-fashioned shark-feeding frenzy!
Reference
Leung, J.Y.S., Nagelkerken, I., Pistevos, J.C.A., Xie, Z., Zhang, S. and Connell, S.D. 2022. Shark teeth can resist ocean acidification. Global Change Biology 28: 2286-2295, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16052.
Nice Work.
Is it reasonable to call a very minor change in Alkalinity of sea water “Acidification”? Shouldn’t we refer to it as “Acidification” only when it reaches the pH of 7.0 and below?
No. pH 7 is the neutral point for the H₃O⁺/OH⁻ equilibrium. It is irrelevant for buffered solutions.
Thanks for pointing out that oceans are highly buffered against pH changes,
And that is totally impossible for them to ever become acidic.
They are buffered against pH change, but not against acidification. The problem is that CO₂ reacts with CO₃⁻⁻, diminishing it, and making CaCO₃ more soluble
CO₂+CO₃⁻⁻+H₂O ⇌2HCO₃⁻
Ca⁺⁺+CO₃⁻⁻⇌CaCO₃₍ₛ₎
The first is an acid-base reaction, but does not involve H⁺.
pH by definition is [H] conc…..
Yes…
Actually H activity, not H concentration, with activity coefficient being a function of ionic strength.
Dude you are spouting nonsense. Even your sister warmunists define “ocean acidification” as a decrease in pH resulting from transfer of atmospheric CO2 to seawater. pH change IS “acidification”, by definition – though that fake term itself is dishonest and misleading.
The buffering capacity of seawater resists the pH change.
No, ocean acidification is the addition of acid. And CO₂ is an acid. A consequence and symptom is that pH does change, relatively slowly because of the buffering. But what matters is the conversion of carbonate to bicarbonate.
I’ve been a chemist for almost 50 years and I can assure you CO2 is not an acid. It reacts with water to form an extremely weak acid. This is buffered by the loads of dead cocolith shells aka Calcium Carbonate. Also it has been shown that the cocoliths thrive in a higher bicarbonate formed from dissolving CO2
“I’ve been a chemist for almost 50 years”
You may remember back to school days when you blew into lime water solution. The CO₂ first reacted with the hydroxide to produce a (milky) precipitate of CaCO₃. Then if you kept blowing the solution would acidify further, converting the carbonate to soluble bicarbonate. The solution would clear. That is what CO₂ does.
So, you are maintaining that the first step of producing a CaCO₃ precipitate was acidifying the solution?
The presence of undissolved CaCO₃ suggests that the solution is alkaline.
The acidification process:
CO₂+2OH⁻⇒CO₃⁻⁻+H₂O
Ca⁺⁺+CO₃⁻⁻⇌CaCO₃₍ₛ₎
and then
CO₂+CaCO₃₍ₛ₎+H₂O ⇒Ca⁺⁺+2HCO₃⁻
Neutralization process.
Its not acidifying its simply reacting with NaOH solution. An NaOH solution is a very strong base comparing it to sea water is absurd
50 years of chemistry? There is no NaOH in lime water. But the second stage mimics the dissolution of calcium carbonate by CO₂
CO₂+CaCO₃₍ₛ₎+H₂O ⇒Ca⁺⁺+2HCO₃⁻
Meanwhile you’re moaning about all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Not much being absorbed by the oceans then, is there?
It’s either or, not both.
No. It is well established that the airborne fraction (that stays in the air) is about 0.5.
Here on Youtube there is a whole bunch of videos on the lime water experiment.
”And CO₂ is an acid. A consequence and symptom is that pH does change, relatively slowly because of the buffering.”
Rubbish. It is a temporary artifact of the current measurement. Total ocean pH will not and can no change until all the solid calcium carbonate in the ocean has been dissolved. That will never happen.
That is a practical outcome of the addition of H2CO3. However, that is not a part of the formal chemical definition of acidity or alkalinity.
Just for the sake of clarity in this argument, CO2 is not identically H2CO3. A decades old patent of Robt. Heitz describes very rapidly scrubbing H2S from stack gas (incl. CO2 donchaknow) using alkaline solution. The CO2 is NOT identical to H2CO3; it hydrolyzes first to H2CO3 before reacting with OH-. That time lag is the essence of the process patent.
Nope. Neutalization is what it´s called.
No, it is being neutralized by the addition of an acid, a weak one at that.
(Neglecting buffering).
Acids are neutralized by bases, bases by acids.
We can discuss ocean acidity after it has been neutralized.
Say in 1, 2, 3 million years or so???
And 0.04% CO2 atmospheric content is going to make the slightest bit of difference to oceans pH.
Talk sense.
Acid, neutral, and alkaline are defined by the pH values.
As you point out, the CO₂+CO₃⁻⁻+H₂O ⇌2HCO₃⁻ reaction doesn’t involve hydronium ions, which is why the pH doesn’t change. It is the ratio of free hydronium ions to hydroxyl ions that is important, and the availability of free hydronium ions to react with other anions that creates the properties of an acid.
“which is why the pH doesn’t change”
As I said, the pH does necessarily change, a little. The pH is determined by the equilibrium
CO₃⁻⁻+H⁺ ⇌HCO₃⁻
and its mass action rule
[CO₃⁻⁻][H⁺] /[HCO₃⁻]=K
or
[H⁺] =k*[HCO₃⁻]/[CO₃⁻⁻]
That nearly fixes [H⁺], hence buffering. But the ratio on the right does change as the reaction progresses.
Exactly how much CO2 would it take to affect the pH level of all the world’s oceans?
To change pH SIGNIFICANTLY, ‘twould take gobs. Remember dem shells, dem shells.
But there is CaCO3 (solid) present, on the ocean floor and in vast quantity. This will provide CO3 (2+) ions in solution and restore the ratio?
Acidification is below pH7.
Acidification is a process; pH is a chemical property. Verb vs. Noun!
No it isn’t, acidification is the addition of H+ and the resulting reduction in pH.
“No it isn’t, acidification is the addition of H+ and the resulting reduction in pH.”
Stop making stuff up!
That is not in any way the definition of the word “acidification”.
Surely the mechanism would involve attack by H+ on the electron lone pair of the uncharged oxygen in CO32-
a simplified sequence would be:
CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3
H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3-
CaCO3 + H+ + HCO3- ⇌ Ca(HCO3)2
Calcium carbonate has not increased in solubility – it has been converted into a soluble hydrogencarbonate by an acid-base reaction which does indeed involve hydrogen ions.
Sorry, this has been converted from a very sensible looking version in Word into chemical nonsense when pasted here!
“the mechanism would involve attack by H+ on the electron lone pair”
Well, bare protons don’t exist in normal chemistry. The pair is involved, but in the Lewis acid/base sense of a donor to be shared (base). And CO₂ is a Lewis acid that is the ultimate acceptor. Whether some protonated species is part of the mechanism doesn’t change the outcome, as you can see by adding your equations together:
CO₂+CaCO₃₍ₛ₎+H₂O ⇌Ca⁺⁺+2HCO₃⁻
I think it is better to separate the acid/base
CO₂+CO₃⁻⁻+H₂O ⇌2HCO₃⁻
from the solubility
Ca⁺⁺+CO₃⁻⁻⇌CaCO₃₍ₛ₎
because the CO₃⁻⁻ is a stable species that may migrate – ie the two reactions could happen in different places.
“Well, bare protons don’t exist in normal chemistry. The pair is involved, but in the Lewis acid/base sense of a donor to be shared (base). And CO₂ is a Lewis acid that is the ultimate acceptor. Whether some protonated species is part of the mechanism doesn’t change the outcome, as you can see by adding your equations together…”
This is 100% made up and incomprehensible nonsense.
Just gobbledygook.
No it’s standard chemistry, CO2 is a Lewis acid, NH3 is a Lewis base, CO2 is an electron acceptor and NH3 is a donor.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The funny part is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
They are arguing the exact opposite that it is the change in pH
Is this one of your special Stokes definitions or perhaps can you link us to the Climate Science fraternity definition?
Like others I still don’t get the term as it is still below 8
“special Stokes definitions “
No, it actually goes back to G.N.Lewis. And although the concept has its centenary next year, it isn’t as widely understood as it should be. I’m afraid the Wiki article is a bit primitive in parts.
The other name for that is it totally disagrees with you … not like it isn’t perfectly clear. Still looking for some climate science reference they do it the Stokes way?
Calcium carbonate does not have its solubility increased per se, it has to become calcium hydrogen carbonate to dissolve and hydrogen ions are certainly involved:
“ it has to become calcium hydrogen carbonate to dissolve”
You seem to have all kinds of ideas on mechanism for which you give no reference or evidence. In fact there is a significant concentration of carbonate ions in sea water. No such conversion is required, and anyway, calcium bicarbonate does not exist as a solid.
How does seawater buffer or neutralize acids created by scrubbing?
“When calcium carbonate (a solid typically found in rocks such as limestone) reacts with acidic free hydrogen (H+) ions in seawater, the solid calcium carbonate dissolves, forming free calcium (Ca2+) ions and free bicarbonate (HCO3–) ions . The free hydrogen ions are consumed resulting in decreased hydrogen ion activity. In other words calcium carbonate acts to neutralise or buffer the solution by consuming hydrogen ions.”
https://www.egcsa.com/technical-reference/how-does-seawater-buffer-or-neutralize-acids-created-by-scrubbing/
So now Nick, tell us how a WARMING ocean can absorb CO2?
I’ll wait… 😀
It’s easy, it follows Henry’s Law, as long as the atmospheric CO2 exceeds the equilibrium value of CO2(aq) it will continue to be absorbed. Currently the pCO2 is increasing faster than the CO2(aq) increases due to surface temperature rise.
It is amazing to once again see a room full of people argue about the definition of a word, without a single person quoting a dictionary.
There are books written, literally, about the definition of words.
They are called dictionaries.
There are all kinds of dictionaries: Medical, legal, general purpose, scientific…and even dictionaries devoted the subject of chemistry.
The word “acidification” has a long history of being defined in all such dictionaries, and every single one of them contains a nearly identical definition.
Acidification: The process of making or becoming an acid.
Simple as that.
It is nonsense to call a process “ocean acidification” when at no time does the ocean ever become an acid.
To correct some other errors in the above discussion…
pH is not the same as hydrogen ion concentration.
In fact, it is a measure of such.
The precise definition is one I do not need to look up, since I am a chemist by university training, and no one who has ever gotten such a degree could ever forget anything so central and basic to the science in which they have earned that degree.
Again, very simply, pH is defined as “minus the log of the hydrogen ion concentration.”
Noting more, nothing less, nothing else.
As for “the pH of the ocean”, giving it a single precise value (such as 8.14) without any clarification or qualification, let alone anything like a statement of uncertainty, makes as much sense as giving a single value to the temperature of the atmosphere.
Each ocean is different, each latitude is different, as is each temperature, each depth, and each and every time of day.
The amounts by which pH varies in the ocean is enormous compared to the supposed change in the average value due to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
It also needs to be said that CO2 in the ocean acts just as it does regarding terrestrial life: It is the essential building block of every single living thing in the sea, perhaps, if possible, even more so than is the case on land. Everything is made of CO2 that is alive. Very nearly every molecule of every living thing is synthesized from CO2.
More of it will translate into a more robust and massive biosphere, to a mathematical certainty.
Finally, besides for all of that, I am once again galled and astounded to see how warmistas conduct every conversation they ever have: As if it is the very first time the entire topic has been raised.
We have years and years of discussing all of this right here alone, with many of the exact same people. Invariably, the warmista faction acts as though they have not been thoroughly and completely refuted many hundreds of times over, in past identical conversations.
Amazing.
Not impossible to become acidic, but extremely unlikely. Considering the extremely low concentration of atmospheric CO2 it would take an extremely enormous and unlikely increase in atmospheric CO2 to cause the oceans to go below pH of 7.0 from the current 8.2.
”And that is totally impossible for them to ever become acidic.”
Or less alkaline.
Bullshit. pH is never irrelevant as it is an absolute measure and determinate of whether an aqueous solution is either acidic or basic.
Any buffered solution only affects the number of moles of H- ions necessary to cause a change of one pH unit.
Stop pretending that you have any scientific knowledge.
“H- ions”?
The buffering here is the CO₃⁻⁻/HCO₃⁻ equilibrium. It buffers because adding acid reacts with CO₃⁻⁻, shifting to HCO₃⁻, rather than increasing concentration of H₃O⁺ (though it does increase a little). But removing CO₃⁻⁻ is exactly the bad effect of acidification.
What happened to Carbonic Acid in all this discussion? What I learnt in school carbonic acid, (H2CO3), a compound of the elements hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. It is formed in small amounts when its anhydride, carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolves in water.
It may be an intermediate in the process, but doesn’t affect the outcome.
Forgive my ignorance, but if CO2 is increasing ocean acidification but Carbonic Acid is not involved, “but (it) doesn’t affect the outcome.” what is the acid then?
How does CO2 concentration in water vary with atmospheric concentration? With water temperature at around 20’C it reduces by about 0.07g per kg (litre) for every degree rise. I can’t find the corresponding data for atmospheric concentration.
I need both to come to some judgement as they are both changing, SST and atmospheric PPM
“Forgive my ignorance, but if CO2 is increasing ocean acidification but Carbonic Acid is not involved, “but (it) doesn’t affect the outcome.” what is the acid then?”
It is all a lot clearer if you are familiar with the Lewis definition. CO₂ is just as much an acid as H₂CO₃; hydration doesn’t add anything. But if you like, you can write a two-step reaction
CO₂+H₂O⇒H₂CO₃
H₂CO₃+CO₃⁻ ⇒2HCO₃⁻
or even split the H₂CO₃. But these mechanism steps involving unstable intermediates don’t change the result, which you can see just by adding those two equations.
” I can’t find the corresponding data for atmospheric concentration.”
You’d normally prescribe the atmospheric concentration and temperature, then look up the solubility in water.
So we now have Nick Stokes using 1923 chemistry that has a slight issue 🙂
Try searching “limitations of Lewis theory of acids and base”
You might stop and look at the limitations and look at exactly what you are claiming using the theory.
This is not the first time you have fallen into the ye old physics hole Nick.
I tried. I got
“About 1 results”
A rather confused site in India.
ROFL sure you did 🙂
Lets help you with the student version
https://chemguide.co.uk/physical/acidbaseeqia/theories.html
So the theory is an old school generalization which sometimes by luck gives the right results but you can’t use it to explain stuff because the theory is wrong. Like 22/7 being Pi it can be used for the odd calculation or approximation of an answer.
You on the other hand are using it as what really happens and trying to explain with it.
That is why you are at disagreement with Wikipedia on the subject and no they aren’t wrong you are.
Your link is a general exposition of the improving sequence of acid/base theories, culminating with Lewis. It says nothing bad about Lewis. It’s worth reading.
No Nick it is old school classical junk theory which quantum mechanics killed. You can’t use that trash to try and argue how something works because it is invalidated. To be honest I had never even heard of the theory because that isn’t something even discussed in modern chemistry.
Going forward whenever you go to use ye olde classical junk to explain how something works you are to stop and ask yourself is this actually valid.
“that isn’t something even discussed in modern chemistry”
You just gave a link to a school guide listing it as the most modern of the theories that students should know about.
It’s true that proton-based theories will do for many purposes, and a lot of people don’t get past that. But CO₂ is an acid without protons, and it’s function is best understood from the Lewis viewpoint.
Besides, at pH 8 there aren’t enough protons to be a significant reagent. They are an indicator.
Nick School not university and no the theory is junk status and leads to stupid conclusions.
You walked right into stupidity because of that junk. Lets be absolutely clear pH tells you nothing of protons, Neutrons, Quarks or any other particles species it is a measure of Hydrogen Ion concentration PERIOD. That is why nobody would teach that rubbish because it’s misleading and you would conclude the wrong thing.
Strangely there are many mixtures that because of QM quirks can carry excess protons and it does not change the pH including water.
https://phys.org/news/2005-07-signatures-protons.html
Can you just stop post and start reading and learning more updated physics and chemistry.
So the in Northern and Southern oceans there will be more dissolved CO2 than in Equatorial oceans?
For example the North Sea varies between 6 & 18’C and the Gulf Of Carpentaria 19 & 24’C. So the North Sea should be more acidic than the Gulf Of Carpentaria. Discounting any pollution in either?
Why is reducing the concentration (not removal) of carbonate ion a bad thing?
Why was there not a mass die-out of shelled molluscs last time atmospheric CO2 was higher than today?
Because it’s a result of acidification, see the Bjerrum curve:
Notice that as pH drops, CO3– goes down.
We’ve had more than enough buffooned solutions from you and your GangGreen chums, Nick.
No. It´s called neutralization if pH drops but stays above pH7.
No neutralization is exactly balancing the H+ and OH-.
No, that is called “neutral.”
Neutralization is the process of making a solution more neutral.
You should stop making stuff up.
And maybe get out a dictionary before you purport to give definitions of terminology.
Words have specific definitions, and in science, these definitions are specific and concise.
You, on the other hand, are wrong and dumb.
Neutral is when H+ = OH-, neutralization is the process of achieving that state.
If it goes up it goes more basic, even a pH of 1 going to 2.
Even though strong acids.
If it goes down it becomes more acidic, even 14 to 13.
even though strong bases.
Why fuss?
You are technically correct. But not PR correct. ‘Ocean acidification’ has been a successful until data failed (as in this post) warmunist PR alarm, and has been since AR4 WG2. No different than ‘Pro Choice’ rather than pro abortion. The problem is when we let the enemy and MSM define the nomenclature for public discourse. Once done, it generally sticks.
You mean misleading as in “pro life”? A term used almost exclusively by death penalty supporters in the US.
Supporting the death penalty is pro life. You are getting rid of murderers. After the penalty, they can no longer harm life.
I would add that the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent to murder. Arguable effectiveness for sure, but that intent is pro-life.
“You mean misleading as in “pro life”? A term used almost exclusively by death penalty supporters in the US.”
You mean the one’s who care enough about every single human to pray the Rosary in front of abortion mills in the hopes the misguided people see the light? They are “almost exclusively death penalty supporters”?? Got any links showing them praying at prisons, in the hopes the violent criminals kill each other off??
You’ve been brainwashed by the first wokeness, abortion rights.
A guy walks into a classroom with a semi automatic rifle and shoots 19 defenceless children and teachers.
And you don’t think he should forfeit his own life?
Wow, so much hatred, so little understanding.
Let’s talk life and death using numbers, shall we?
Duane, as usual and always, you are the ultimate horse’s ass.
The number of prisoners executed in the US since the mid-1970’s is, to date, 1549.
All killers and accomplices to capital murder. Every one of them an incorrigible criminal.
The number of innocent unborn babies murdered since Roe is truly astounding: As of last January 7th, the number is an unfathomable sixty-three million, four hundred and fifty-nine thousand, seven hundred and eighty-one.
Again, that’s 69,459,781.
By way of comparison, if we round up the time to an even 50 years, that comes to 18,262 days, including leap days.
3803.5 babies killed every single day for 50 years straight.
Well over twice as many dead babies every single day than all the murderers put to death since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated.
Stated another way, every single day, by 10:30 AM in the morning, more babies are killed by abortion than all the murderers ever executed in the entire USA since 1976!
And then the rest of the day ticks by, with another unborn baby deliberately killed every 22 seconds.
Every.
Single.
Minute.
Every.
Single.
Day.
Another kid who will never get to even breathe a single breath.
BTW, over 20,000,000 of those deaths by abortion were African American babies. As of the 2020 census, there are about 41,100,000 African Americans in the US. Just think about that.
Just think for once.
“You are technically correct.”
I disagree…he is factually and hence technically wrong.
Acid and base are not relative terms.
They are more like the words Day and Night.
When it is nighttime, it is not mostly night and only a little bit day. When we go from 12 midnight to 1:00 AM, we are not becoming more day and less night, just because sunrise is now sooner.
“Acidic” and “acid” denote a solution with a pH below 7. Whether the pH is 0.05 or 6.99, that solution is an acid.
It is not mostly acid and only a little basic if the pH is 1.0…it is an acid.
Period!
You will not find any other definition if you read every chemistry text ever written, unless it was written recently by a warmista who hopes to redefine the clear terminology every chemist has used for over 100 years.
So if temps go from 100 to 99 it’s getting cold and if from -100 to -99, hot? No. That is misleading and confusing for the majority. Same with using the term acidification. It’s misleading and factually wrong. The ocean is not becoming acidic. If anything, it is becoming less alkaline. I have never seen any research suggesting the ocean is in danger of ever becoming acidic.
What’s next, the diet of an overweight 500 lb person resulting in a 10 lb loss is causing ‘anorexiafication’? Pretty much destroys the meaning of words, don’t you think?
“Renewable” as applied to energy has destroyed the meaning of that word.
Current forms of wind and solar collectors are unsustainable as a means of converting energy but they are universally described as “renewable”.
Yes.
Ruinable Energy.
Much more accurate.
Except for the perpetrators, who continue to fill their boots with cash stolen from the honest.
Jtom Reply to angech
” So if temps go from 100 to 99 it’s getting cold and if from -100 to -99, hot?
–
Sorry jtom,
the term gets colder means temperatures go down and
the term hotter means temperatures go up.
–
Quibble away as much as you like.
–
“The ocean is not becoming acidic.
If anything, it is becoming less alkaline.”
–
The key word you use there is “less”.
The corollary is “more”
Something becoming less alkaline is becoming more acidic.
The two terms are interchangeable.
If you do not like one please do not use the other.
–
” I have never seen any research suggesting the ocean is in danger of ever becoming acidic”
That is good to know.
–
Anorexia is the condition of extreme weight loss. Certainly losing 10 lbs in a diet for anyone is a fantastic achievement.
However were a person in a much lower weight range say 5’6″” weighing 84 lbs to lose 10 lbs it would be a cause for concern.
–
The 10 lb loss is a loss in the direction of an eventual trouble.
–
“Pretty much destroys the meaning of words, don’t you think?”
–
If you want to quibble, or be misleading, yes.
Go ahead.
Nothing but noise about a complete non event. The actual question is, what will the change in Ph be as a result of additional expected CO2 in ocean water, and what effect will that have, if any, on ocean life? Answer-absolutely nothing whatsoever.
This is relying to everybody that think this way.
Definition of Acidic
“having the properties of an acid, or containing acid; having a pH below 7.”
Therefore pH 8 is not acidic.
When something isn’t what it is, it can’t be more of it.
Is water more or less ice than 15% sea ice?
It can’t be more because there is zero ice.
more
/mɔː/
determiner
determiner: more
“a greater or additional amount or degree of.”
less
/lɛs/
determiner
determiner: less
“a smaller amount of; not as much.”
You can’t have more of something that is not there in the first place.
The oceans with a pH of around 8.2 may have reduced a little from pH 8.3. The oceans have become less alkaline in this statement.
Definition of alkaline
” : of, relating to, containing, or having the properties of an alkali or alkali metal : basic especially, of a solution : having a pH of more than 7.”
Thank you!
Finally, someone besides me who actually looked it up in a dictionary.
You know, those books that are written for the specific purpose of referencing the actual meaning of words?
This has been going on for years…over ten years right here that I know of.
And every single time it comes up, the warmista jackasses pretend no one has ever shown them to be 100% wrong in every single such discussion.
We have entire posts…long essays…detailing how the terminology of “ocean acidification” is made up for purpose.
Another ad hoc scare word.
Nothing more.
It is as stupid and wrong as anything can be.
The people arguing otherwise should ponder on what it says about them that they can take the stupid and wrong side of an argument and make it their own, like they have bet money on it or something.
“The two terms are interchangeable.”
Wrong.
You are making stuff up.
Obviously you have zero training in the relevent discipline.
You do not even know how to use a dictionary.
The two words are not relative.
One refers to a pH above 7, the other a pH of below 7.
There is not a single dictionary or chemistry text that supports your made-up bullshit.
No, 100 to 99 is ‘cooling’ the equivalent of acidification, 99 to 100 is ‘warming’ the equivalent of basification. Just like in human blood ‘acidosis’ is reduction in pH below about 7.35, alkalosis is the increase in pH above 7.45. Acidosis if not properly treated can be fatal.
No, not “just like” that.
Acidosis is a medical term.
It is completely separate and specific to that exact condition and situation.
Notice how it is only called acidosis if the pH goes below a critical value.
There is a specific and exact cutoff point.
“Just like” when chemists only refer to a solution as an acid when the pH is below 7.
Looks like Nick and angich took a different style of Chemistry than I did. Less acidic and Less alkaline as you approach ph 7.0.
Ron
“Looks like Nick and angëch took a different style of Chemistry than I did”
–
Not at all.
Same chemistry.
Same English.
Nick plays word games.
I use straight semantics.
Nick can be correct but annoying .
I can be annoying but correct.
There is a marked difference between us.
Most of the time except when he is right.
“Less acidic and Less alkaline as you approach ph 7.0.”
The problem is different geometry.
You are approaching the neutral point from different directions.
If you approach from a pH of 8 the acidity is more and the alkalinity is more.
Vice versa from a pH of 6, the acidity is less at 7 and the alkalinity is more
–
Quibbles.
No, you are not correct, because you are working from a false proposition…that acid and base are merely relative terms.
You seem to be saying every solution is partly acid and partly base.
But that is wrong.
“Acid” only and specifically refers to a solution with a pH value below 7.
The terms are not relative, they are in opposition to each other. They do not co-exist in every solution.
I do not even need to ask if you are a chemist.
Because I am one, and I am telling you, that you do not know what you are talking about.
Plain and simple.
Ron,
I do not think it has anything to do with anything like where someone studied.
I am 100% certain that anyone arguing that ocean acidification is valid terminology, and all the rest of this nonsense about 2 being less basic than 3, etc, is just making it up, and arguing from the basis of a factually uninformed opinion…nothing else.
No, and yes. A slightly less basic solution is not acidic unless/until pH drops to less than 7.0. Current oceanic pH is about 8.2. The buffering capacity of seawater is such that large increases in the solubility of CO2 produce negligible changes in seawater pH.
“Ocean acidification” is a non-scientific and highly prejudicial term promoted by the warmunists, because “acid” sounds very vewy scawy to people lacking knowledge of aqueous chemistry.
”The buffering capacity of seawater is such that large increases in the solubility of CO2 produce negligible changes in seawater pH.”
Not negligible. Zero
No, a small change, neither negligible nor zero.
The changes in ocean pH due to rising atmospheric CO2 are not zero, but they are entirely inconsequential.
Just like when the temperature of the air changes by some tiny fraction of a degree on average over a period of many years.
Because, for one thing, the variations from place to place and day to day are far far larger.
Yes. It´s called neutralization.
If your blood pH drops below 7.35 you are considered acidotic but it’s not acidic, if it rises above 7.45 you are considered alkalotic, even though it remains slightly alkaline. Human blood is buffered by carbonate, bicarbonate and carbon dioxide.
https://www.healthline.com/health/ph-of-blood
Perhaps the terminology in physiology should be applied to the oceans, after all that is where we evolved.
The buffering system in the blood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate_buffer_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davenport_diagram
Is this a reasonable analogue to the ocean? Obviously our blood is at 37 degrees Celsius whereas the ocean is probably somewhat colder and hence can absorb more carbon dioxide.
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would be analogous to physiological hypercapnia.
“So it is that another scientific study has shown ocean acidification and warming to be a non-problem.”
No, it says that shark’s teeth would be OK.
What is missing is, who said they were in danger in the first place?
NS, it is an experiment on a species. The species the ‘acidification angst’ papers I am personally familiar with (ALL debunked) include: corals, reef fish of all Australian sorts, Pacific oysters in the Northwest US, juvenile food fish including tuna, juvenile shellfish generally (the paper was mussels, clams, abalone), coccolithophores, and Antarctic tooth fish (aka Chilean sea bass). I stopped looking for more papers to debunk after various experimental ‘acidification alarm’ authors like in Sweden and Delaware started issuing their own retractions under pressure.
Rud , could you help by giving a definition of TOA for me over at Climate etc?
3rd of 5 posts by Javier.
No one has any idea.
Only every alarmist activist out there, including almost every democrat in congress. By saying all life is in peril due to “climate change”.
Shark’s teeth?
Now you’re being purposefully obtuse.
That is the default
I’m nobody and I have no respect for him any more.
Stupid word games all the time
Just to be contrary.
No, Stokes is quite well known for adamantly supporting his world view, irrespective of how many rules of grammar or scientific definitions he maims in the process.
That’s his specialty.
Nick , could you help by giving a definition of TOA for me over at Climate etc?
3rd of 5 posts by Javier.
No one has any idea.
I would probably only add to the confusion.
OK,
Thanks anyway.
Isn’t that what you do best, though?
Impossible to add to the confusion here 🙂
Though you do your best.
Are sharks not alive?
“Shark teeth can resist ocean acidification.”
One of those great research papers that needed a little bit of peer review, Nick.
As you alone could appreciate at one end of the shark’s tooth is the ocean, now dropped 0.3% in pH.
At the other end of the tooth is the shark and its gum.
Nestling the tooth roots in a PH environment somewhere between 7.14 and 7.4.
Much more acidic than the pH of the ocean water [8.0] and the test water [7.7].
–
One could simply point out to these scientists that if the tooth survives quite well in an environment 5-8 times more “acidic” than the ocean in the gum then it should have no problems at all at 2 or 3 times the acidity of the ocean.
I guess Nick doesn’t read the stuff put out by his side either.
Another net-zero anthropogenic effect outside of a limited frame in space and time.
Sharks don’t actually regrow teeth one by one but have multiple rows inside their jaw that are constantly regrown. When a tooth on the edge of the jaw drops out, the corresponding tooth in the row behind it moves forward to replace it.
Port Jacksons are closely related to our very own California Horn Shark. Members of this group are called Bullhead Sharks because of their great, big heads. Not so much for the horns on their two dorsal fins, but they have those, too. Their genus is named Heterodontus, meaning “different teeth”.
their teeth are different from other sharks, although they are, it’s that they have two different kinds of teeth in their mouth. The front ones are small and sharp. The back ones are flat and smooth.
also called a gummy shark
And sharks lose a lot of teeth. I have a whole fossil shark tooth collection (hundreds, of different sizes from different species) weathered out of the bluffs along the Chesapeake bay formed about 20MYA.
Sharks (and rays) are an amazing group – hugely adaptive, they’ve been able to differentiate species into almost every part of the oceans and a huge variety of environments.
How do you brush a shark’s teeth?
Very, very carefully.
The study’s results are as expected (no big deal), but the -0.3 pH scenario is unrealistic. The ocean is highly buffered. As a result, AR4 ‘acidification’ alarm was wrong by more than a factor of 2. Thanks to buffering, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could at most lower ocean pH by 0.15-0.18, depending on where in the ocean.
As for marine life adaptability, Florida Bay ranges from a pH of 5.8 in winter off the brackish mangrove fringe of the Everglades, to a summer high of 9.8 northeast of Key West just 60 miles away. The Florida Bay conch (Key West is aka The Conch Republic) and snook and thallassia sea grass obviously thrive year round despite this extreme variability. Details in essay ‘Shell Games’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Florida Bay was part of the factual ocean pH intro before exposing two separate cases of ‘acidification’ academic misconduct. Hence the essay title double entendre allusion to the famous con game.
During photosynthesis your turtle grass infuses oxygen into roots and sediment keeping toxic sulfides out.—Lee, K-S. and K. H. Dunton. 2000. Diurnal changes in pore water sulfide concentrations in the seagrass Thalassia testudinum beds: The effects of seagrasses on sulfide dynamics. Journal Experimental Marine Biology Ecology. 255(2):201-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(00)00300-2
Bull sharks raise their young in low salinity estuaries, some which have real acid sediments, hard to avoid when eating a buried blue crab. Australian and Asian scientists that published this paper are outclassing the others. Suggestion is that more need to leave their satellites and computer models to play in the mud!
I can say with confidence, because of experimentation some 30 years ago, that CO₂ can acidify water to about a pH of 4.1. However, that is at a pressure greater than 73 atmospheres and a temperature of around 30ºC i.e. supercritical conditions. Somehow I do not see that occurring in sea water!
Ah ha!
“A new study proves that increasing CO2 levels can produce highly acidic water with a pH of 4.1.”
— Lede to an article from a recent J-school graduate that got a “D” in Rocks for Jocks (their only science class)
”Thanks to buffering, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could at most lower ocean pH by 0.15-0.18, depending on where in the ocean.”
Exactly, so until someone can show us that all 300 million cubic miles has become less alkaline, I say ocean ”acidification” or a lowering of alkalinity is utter bullshit and the superficial measurements observed can only be temporary or ”in flux” towards being completely neutralized and will continue to be neutralized forever.
Ocean “Acidification” was intended to prolong the CAGW Scare a few more years. It was never a serious scientific hypothesis.
That doubling of atmospheric CO2 needs to be shared between the atmosphere and the oceans.
I still recoil at the use of the term “ocean acidification”.
Agree, but the alarmists won that terminology with AR4 a decade and a half ago.
A ‘win’ resulting in loss of accuracy and an increase in confusion needs to be challenged at every turn. My Oxford dictionary defines acidify (verb): make or become acidic (i.e. a pH below 7) – people who understand this should point it out.
Which is my ongoing beef. Sceptics have been combatting leftists climate change propaganda with science, that 90% of the world does not understand.
Why are we talking to people in a foreign language?
That’s why we’re in the mess we are now.
Sharks are always on the move. If in shallow water they sensed a change in the PH which they did not like, they would simply swin away.
This of course applies to all sea creatures, except things like the GBR, but as we are now told that a miracle has occurred, then one can safely assume that the waters around the reef are safe too.
Michael VK5ELL
There are, of course, 2 main types of sea creatures – those that move around to find food and those that stay in one place, where the food comes to them.
In passing gummy shark is popular in ‘fish & chips’ in Australia.
This kind of research is EVIL! Now all the great villains of the world know to raise their killer patrol sharks in higher temperature water so their teeth are even harder and more vicious.
Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the hero spies?
OMG! Global warming causes killer sharks!
Add that and cannibalism to the list of things that global warming causes. Is there no end to the perfidy of CO2?
Those savage teeth, combined with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads, will make the sharks particularly deadly in the future!
And faster. Fart propulsion.
I can’t describe how relieved I was to read the findings of this research.
I’ve had countless sleepless nights worrying about how sharks would meet their dentistry costs if their teeth were going to be burned away by acidified oceans.
I can probably now safely advise all who contributed to the GoFundMe I set up to address this imminent catastrophe that their money will be returned soon.
(Less a modest admin fee % of course. And a virtuous donation to World Wildlife Fund. Realistically, contributors will receive f.all money back. But you aren’t really surprised, are you?)
It is interesting that these minor changes occurred under conditions of continuous exposure to higher temperatures, lower pH and a combination of both. Actually the pH and temperature of the ocean does not remain constant but like every other weather related phenomenon fluctuates constantly and according to Dr J Marohassy by day and night. So this experiment is meaningless in the likely response of sharks teeth to these changes.
It is also interesting that although the hardness and strength of shark’s teeth reduced when exposed to lower pH, the changes were almost completely reversed when the combined exposure of low pH and elevated temperature were used. From a materials perspective this is exactly what one would expect.
By the way there is not necessarily an inverse relationship between Modulus of Elasticity and toughness of any material. Apart from a minimum strength, the important factor is the strain to failure of the composite that makes up the shark’s teeth. Since these materials are bio-composites like mollusc shells which are composed of mineral crystals embedded in a protein matrix, their toughness is very large and will not be much compromised by low pH in the water. Indeed molluscs are known to be able to form their shells in low pH presumably because they can control the pH internally when forming the mineral portion of their shells. I suspect that teeth in sharks are similarly immune to the vagaries of sea water pH.
Finally, sharks regularly replace their teeth with new teeth as they are damaged by use. So unless the pH was so low that serious damage would be done to the teeth, it seems unlikely that these changes in pH and temperature would seriously compromise the ability of the sharks to survive.
“Shark teeth can resist ocean acidification.”
Worth repeating
One of those great research papers that needed a little bit of peer review.
As one can appreciate at one end of the shark’s tooth is the ocean, now dropped 0.3% in pH.
At the other end of the tooth is the shark and its gum.
Nestling the tooth roots in a PH environment somewhere between 7.14 and 7.4.
Much more acidic than the pH of the ocean water [8.0] and the test water [7.7].
–
One could simply point out to these scientists that if the tooth survives quite well in an environment 5-8 times more “acidic” than the ocean in the gum then it should have no problems at all at 2 or 3 times the acidity of the ocean.
All calcifiers can manipulate the pH at the growth interface, albeit at the cost of some energy penalty beyond their optimal range, which is probably the pH they evolved in. Most calcifiers then protect their energy investment by the addition of chitin and/or mucous to separate their calcite/aragonite products from the water. Teeth are usually covered with hydroxyapatite, a phosphate, less susceptible to dissolution in seawater.
This whole question of “acidification” illustrates the reason why the term should not be used.
First off, it creates an ambiguous situation where it isn’t clear whether the environmental impacts of concern result from sea water that is actually acidic, or more likely alkaline, but declining in alkalinity.
The essence of the discussed research is, “Over what range of pH might shark teeth, calcium phosphate, have the mechanical properties impacted?” The issues raised by Stokes about calcium carbonate solubility don’t even apply. And, the ambiguous term “acidification” tells us nothing about the pH range, and is actually misleading.
Stokes and his ilk are so concerned about defending the paradigm of anthropogenic disruption of ecosystems that they are willing to sacrifice accurate scientific descriptions. The Red Herrings continue to thrive.
I thought this was settle long ago by this 2008 Science paper https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1154122
Their conclusions don’t provide any justification for a concern about a purported decline in alkalinity, and obviate a need to use inappropriate scary terms like “acidification.”
It isn’t just a matter of using improbable future scenarios. As documented here by several authors, the historical measurements of pH are rejected in favor of a model to estimate historical pH.
Been saying this for years. Glad to see that the science is catching up with WUWT.
w.
Baby steps. It’ll get where we are now in a couple of decades, if we’re lucky.
That’s what worries me. What shape will the world be in with another couple of decades of this crap?
“Ocean acidification” is a red herring because the effect is both minuscule & benign. It’s also a misnomer, because it doesn’t even acidify the oceans according to any dictionary’s definition of the word:
acidify 𝒗. To make or become acid.
Rainwater and freshwater lakes and rivers are often somewhat acidic. But seawater is caustic (alkaline).
This is the first I’ve heard about fears that CO2 could harm sharks’ teeth. Usually we’re told it threatens corals, which is also nonsense.
I said “seawater is caustic (alkaline),” i.e. its pH is above seven. But there are a few (very few!) places where that is not always so. Very locally, in places with very unusual local influences, such has hydrothermal vents & seeps, seawater pH can drop slightly below seven.
The significance of such places is that they demonstrate that corals can thrive even in waters where pH levels vary with “intense sudden changes down to pH 6.8 and up to 8.1” within hours. Here’s a paper:
https://www.geochemie.uni-bremen.de/pdf/pichler/2019%20MPB%20Pichler.pdf
Excerpt:
Normal ocean waters will never become acidic, but rising atmospheric CO2 levels slightly lower the pH of seawater near the surface of the ocean. But that’s precisely the part of the ocean which is most caustic:
Note how much higher pH levels are near the surface than farther down. That means so-called “ocean acidification” just makes ocean pH levels slightly more equable.
It is certainly no threat to coral reefs. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is about 20 million years old. It has withstood CO2 levels both higher & much lower than present, temperatures both substantially warmer & much colder, and water levels both significantly higher & much lower, than present.
Neither “ocean acidification”[sic] nor warmer temperatures threaten coral. Most coral thrive best in warmest water. Even the very warm southern Red Sea is dotted with healthy coral reefs (unlike the cooler Mediterranean). Reef locations are mostly clustered around the warm equator:
At 7:20 in this BBC video you can hear how wonderfully healthy the coral are in warmest part of the very warm southern Red Sea, off Eritrea:
t=7m20s
That water is MUCH warmer than the GBR.
Well you just presented a graph showing that the N Pacific Ocean is acidic below ~500m depth!
Stop calling it “acidification”. The pH of the ocean is 8.1, it´s alkaline. If pH drops 0.1 it´s still alkaline. Lowering pH of alkaline water is not called acidification, it´s called neutralization. In lakes it´s not called acidification until it goes below pH6, and it´s mostly not seen as a problem until it goes down to closer to pH5.
If the ocean is neutralized by 0.1 pH it isn´t a problem. It just gets a little more neutral. Oh no, look how neutral the ocean got by 0.1pH, the world is ending.
But that’s 10% more acidic! /sarc
Actually more like 26% more acidic!
Maybe Willis or someone with better math skills than mine could calculate just how much CO2 would be necessary to reduce the all the oceans to a pH of less than 8, and then 6, and then 5. My guess is we would need to import a lot of CO2 from Venus and Mars to do the trick.
Silicon Dioxide, barely any surprise, dissolves into water in a very similar way as does Carbon Dioxide
All the world’s oceans are sitting in basins comprised of little more and have been since the last 4 or 5 billion years.
Strangely, they do not appear to have become baths of boiling acid and perfectly devoid of life
(I won’t upset ‘the little ones’ by asking: Why is that?)
Some other time maybe….. ;-D
Silicon dioxide, otherwise known as SAND, dissolves in water in a very similar way to carbon dioxide?? Are you sure?
Alkaline reduction is boring. Acidification is SCARY: so that is why the ALARMISTS ensure that we all talk about acidification. Never mind the science – that’s also boring; so best leave that to keep the sceptics busy.
A bad experiment is still a bad experiment.
Simple stated, they built and operated a salt water aquarium for rearing baby sharks.
Not an easy project, even for experienced salt water aquarium operators.
Then they attribute all changes in shark teeth to “climate change”. Even though the results work against the climate change gonzos, it is still a terrible experiment design and operation.
I expect the author’s will soon be fired, for the sin of being non-collegial.
I still find it gobsmacking that so-called ‘science types’ can talk ocean warming and acidification at the same time. It’s basic chemistry that warming water gives off CO2 while cooling water absorbs it.
It’s the exact process we use to make bubbles in home brew beer. Stick the CO2 line on the keg and cool that sucker down – VOILA! beer with CO2 in it that makes bubbles when you pour it.
If the ocean is acidifying (it’s not) then it cannot be warming. If it is warming it cannot be acidifying.
Anything else is fake science, usually spelt ‘propaganda’ and has no basis in reality.
Not true, whether CO2 leaves the ocean depends on the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (pCO2) and the concentration of CO2 in the ocean (CO2(aq)). It’s called Henry’s Law, in equilibrium CO2(aq)=KH(T)*pCO2. If pCO2 is above the equilibrium value warming the ocean will not cause CO2 to leave the ocean.